On Sunday 24 April 2005 04:54 pm, Athul Acharya wrote:
> > Possibly there should be a "tradunix" ebuild that pulls in all the
> > traditional Unix stuff as dependencies (and is otherwise empty), and
> > similarly for other sets of things people hold dear, just to act as
> > macros when you're setti
> Possibly there should be a "tradunix" ebuild that pulls in all the
> traditional Unix stuff as dependencies (and is otherwise empty), and
> similarly for other sets of things people hold dear, just to act as
> macros when you're setting up a system.
I think this is a spectacular idea. The push
Alec Warner wrote:
> The base-install doesn't include a lot of things I would consider
> essential on most systems ( log daemon, cron, mta ) yet those are not in
> system. That is the primary reason why we have a handbook and ask that
> people both read and follow it. If it's generally agreed tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Anthony de Boer wrote:
> Alin Nastac wrote:
>
>>when was the last time you used ed? it is a completely useless editor,
>>peeps use vim instead.
>
>
> I use "vi", not "vim", though of course the former is a symlink to the
> latter on Linux systems fo
Alin Nastac wrote:
> when was the last time you used ed? it is a completely useless editor,
> peeps use vim instead.
I use "vi", not "vim", though of course the former is a symlink to the
latter on Linux systems for the last number of years.
Last time I used ed was on an RH system with a broken /
maillog: 22/04/2005-20:32:59(-0700): Drake Wyrm types
> It certainly goes against my nature to be serious in a conversation so
> otherwise comical, but...
>
> Is there any reason why app-editors/ed doesn't PROVIDE virtual/editor?
I'm guessing here, but since ed is in system (that's what this is a
At 2005-04-22T17:54:31-0400, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 22 April 2005 05:49 pm, David Klaftenegger wrote:
> > Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:29:58 -0700 Drake Wyrm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > While you're at it, get rid of nano, too. None
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:29:58 -0700 Drake Wyrm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| While you're at it, get rid of nano, too. None of the packages
| *require* it, either. That would save almost 800k! Woo!
nano isn't in system.
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:29:58 -0700 Drake Wyrm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | While you're at it, get rid of nano, too. None of the packages
> | *require* it, either. That would save almost 800k! Woo!
>
> nano isn't in system.
>
# emerge -pve system | grep nano
[ebuild N
At 2005-04-21T13:06:57-0400, Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons and because
> we've never actually tracked what packages invoke 'bc' or 'ed' in
> their scripts
>
> psm has looked into this and found that nothing else in a typical
> `em
On 2005-04-22 00:15, Alin Nastac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> when was the last time you used ed? it is a completely useless editor,
> peeps use vim instead.
It's been a while, but I was glad I had it. You might be too next
time you reboot to find that curses has been hosed.
I know, I know... us
On Friday 22 April 2005 07:35 pm, Luke Ravitch wrote:
> On 2005-04-22 00:15, Alin Nastac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > when was the last time you used ed? it is a completely useless editor,
> > peeps use vim instead.
>
> It's been a while, but I was glad I had it. You might be too next
> time you
On Friday 22 April 2005 05:49 pm, David Klaftenegger wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:29:58 -0700 Drake Wyrm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > | While you're at it, get rid of nano, too. None of the packages
> > | *require* it, either. That would save almost 800k! Woo!
> >
>
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Friday 22 April 2005 05:49 pm, David Klaftenegger wrote:
>
>>Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:29:58 -0700 Drake Wyrm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>| While you're at it, get rid of nano, too. None of the packages
>>>| *require* it, either. That would sa
On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 10:09 +0300, Alin Nastac wrote:
>
> when was the last time you used ed? it is a completely useless editor,
No. its the only editor that can change a file without munging up the
inodes. Its very useful because of this.
And its also easy to shoot yourself in the foot because
Philip Webb wrote:
050421 Juha Varkki wrote:
050421 Mike Frysinger wrote:
we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons
and because we've never actually tracked what packages invoke them
Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
Why on earth are you taking it out? I use bc quite of
On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 02:46 -0400, Philip Webb wrote:
> 050421 Juha Varkki wrote:
> > 050421 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons
> >> and because we've never actually tracked what packages invoke them
> > Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
Philip Webb wrote:
>Ed is there because it's needed for Sed, which is useful for sysadmin;
>Bc has a similar usefulness. all at basic console level.
>
>
sed does not depend on ed, nor does the ed depend on sed.
sed should remain in system since tons of ebuild heavily depends on it.
when was th
050421 Juha Varkki wrote:
> 050421 Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons
>> and because we've never actually tracked what packages invoke them
> Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
> Why on earth are you taking it out? I use bc quite often actu
On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 19:26 -0400, Alec Joseph Warner wrote:
> shouldn't be there, we can trim 250kb off of all our stages and
> liveCD's. Embedded gains 250kb off of their stuff as well. I just
Amen, brother.
This is something that most people forget. To some of us, every single
byte of spa
If someone is willing to do the work and not fsck things royally I don't
see a big deal about it. If nothing in system depends on it then it
shouldn't be there, we can trim 250kb off of all our stages and
liveCD's. Embedded gains 250kb off of their stuff as well. I just
don't want to see gia
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Luis F. Araujo wrote:
>
>
>>Nobody is forcing. I think it is better/easier to keep the package
>>than tracking/adding a lot of dependencies in the ebuilds.
>>
>>
>
>So you think actually knowing what packages truly dep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Luis F. Araujo wrote:
> Nobody is forcing. I think it is better/easier to keep the package
> than tracking/adding a lot of dependencies in the ebuilds.
So you think actually knowing what packages truly depend on is a bad idea?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
Mike Frysinger wrote:
>On Thursday 21 April 2005 03:19 pm, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
>
>
>>On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:09:16PM +0300, Juha Varkki wrote:
>>
>>
>>>bc? Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
>>>Why on earth are you taking it out?
>>>I use bc quite often actually ..
>>
On Thursday 21 April 2005 03:19 pm, Maurice van der Pot wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:09:16PM +0300, Juha Varkki wrote:
> > bc? Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
> > Why on earth are you taking it out?
> > I use bc quite often actually ..
>
> It's gonna be taken out of system,
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 10:09:16PM +0300, Juha Varkki wrote:
> bc? Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
> Why on earth are you taking it out?
> I use bc quite often actually ..
It's gonna be taken out of system, not removed from portage.
You can still emerge it if you want it, you'll j
bc? Do you mean /usr/bin/bc or did I miss something?
Why on earth are you taking it out?
I use bc quite often actually ..
-- Juha Varkki / dbg
On 4/21/05, Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:06:57 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | we've had 'bc'
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:06:57 -0400 Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons and because
| we've never actually tracked what packages invoke 'bc' or 'ed' in
| their scripts
Anyone still using ed-style patches rather than context or unified
d
On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 01:06:57PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> we've had 'bc' and 'ed' around for historical reasons and because we've never
> actually tracked what packages invoke 'bc' or 'ed' in their scripts
>
> psm has looked into this and found that nothing else in a typical `emerge
> sy
29 matches
Mail list logo
