Re: bin/146916: [patch] sh(1) uses dumb terminal in single-user mode

2010-06-03 Thread Bruce Evans
On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 02:35:34AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: On Fri, 28 May 2010, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:38:30PM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote: * Ed Schouten wrote: Why should the shell be responsible for this? Shouldn't we pu

Re: bin/146916: [patch] sh(1) uses dumb terminal in single-user mode

2010-06-02 Thread Jilles Tjoelker
On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 02:35:34AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Fri, 28 May 2010, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:38:30PM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote: > >> * Ed Schouten wrote: > >>> Why should the shell be responsible for this? Shouldn't we put stuff > >>> like this in /sbin/

Re: bin/146916: [patch] sh(1) uses dumb terminal in single-user mode

2010-05-28 Thread Bruce Evans
On Fri, 28 May 2010, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:38:30PM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote: * Ed Schouten wrote: Why should the shell be responsible for this? Shouldn't we put stuff like this in /sbin/init? Of course not. This belongs in root's dotfiles. Although login.conf s

Re: bin/146916: [patch] sh(1) uses dumb terminal in single-user mode

2010-05-28 Thread Jilles Tjoelker
On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 12:38:30PM +0200, Ed Schouten wrote: > * Ed Schouten wrote: > > Why should the shell be responsible for this? Shouldn't we put stuff > > like this in /sbin/init? > Oh wait. Never mind. I understand the issue. Jilles, what do you think > about this? Yes, I think init(8) sh

Re: bin/146916: [patch] sh(1) uses dumb terminal in single-user mode

2010-05-28 Thread Ed Schouten
* Ed Schouten wrote: > Why should the shell be responsible for this? Shouldn't we put stuff > like this in /sbin/init? Oh wait. Never mind. I understand the issue. Jilles, what do you think about this? -- Ed Schouten WWW: http://80386.nl/ pgpQtPO6IFkEI.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: bin/146916: [patch] sh(1) uses dumb terminal in single-user mode

2010-05-28 Thread Ed Schouten
Why should the shell be responsible for this? Shouldn't we put stuff like this in /sbin/init? -- Ed Schouten WWW: http://80386.nl/ ___ freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-bugs To unsubscribe, send a

Re: bin/146916: [patch] sh(1) uses dumb terminal in single-user mode

2010-05-28 Thread brucec
Synopsis: [patch] sh(1) uses dumb terminal in single-user mode Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-bugs->ed Responsible-Changed-By: brucec Responsible-Changed-When: Fri May 28 10:31:53 UTC 2010 Responsible-Changed-Why: Ed, it looks like this is related to the terminal changes - could you take

Re: bin/146916: [patch] sh(1) uses dumb terminal in single-user mode

2010-05-24 Thread Guy Yur
The following reply was made to PR bin/146916; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Guy Yur To: bug-follo...@freebsd.org, guy...@gmail.com Cc: Subject: Re: bin/146916: [patch] sh(1) uses dumb terminal in single-user mode Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 15:30:54 +0300 the spacing for the Fix field was

bin/146916: [patch] sh(1) uses dumb terminal in single-user mode

2010-05-24 Thread Guy Yur
>Number: 146916 >Category: bin >Synopsis: [patch] sh(1) uses dumb terminal in single-user mode >Confidential: no >Severity: non-critical >Priority: low >Responsible:freebsd-bugs >State: open >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: