It has been reported on ipcop-devel list that cp foo{,.bak} contruction is
broken on Ubuntu-8.04
This was on expect instructions
cp configure{,.bak}
cp: missing destination file operand after `configure{,.bak}'
Try `cp --help' for more information.
Could it not be prefered to build sed at the
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 02:52:30PM +0200, Gilles Espinasse wrote:
> It has been reported on ipcop-devel list that cp foo{,.bak} contruction is
> broken on Ubuntu-8.04
>
> This was on expect instructions
>
> cp configure{,.bak}
> cp: missing destination file operand after `configure{,.bak}'
> Tr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Gilles Espinasse wrote:
> It has been reported on ipcop-devel list that cp foo{,.bak} contruction is
> broken on Ubuntu-8.04
>
> This was on expect instructions
>
> cp configure{,.bak}
> cp: missing destination file operand after `configure{,.
Gilles Espinasse wrote:
> It has been reported on ipcop-devel list that cp foo{,.bak} contruction is
> broken on Ubuntu-8.04
>
> This was on expect instructions
>
> cp configure{,.bak}
> cp: missing destination file operand after `configure{,.bak}'
> Try `cp --help' for more information.
>
> C
- Original Message -
From: "Ken Moffat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "LFS Developers Mailinglist"
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: cp foo{,.bak} not always supported
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 02:52:30PM +0200, Gilles Espinasse wrote:
> > It has been reported on ipcop-devel l
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 04:06:47PM +0100, Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 02:52:30PM +0200, Gilles Espinasse wrote:
> > It has been reported on ipcop-devel list that cp foo{,.bak} contruction is
> > broken on Ubuntu-8.04
> >
> > This was on expect instructions
> >
> > cp configure{,
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 02:52:30PM +0200, Gilles Espinasse wrote:
>
>> It has been reported on ipcop-devel list that cp foo{,.bak} contruction is
>> broken on Ubuntu-8.04
>>
>> This was on expect instructions
>>
>> cp configure{,.bak}
>> cp: missing destination file operand
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 06:19:03PM +0200, Gilles Espinasse wrote:
> This was just to inform.
> You could require what you desire.
>
> For me, less requirement is better so we will adapt our scripts.
> I do not imagine I could make Ubuntu change something just to let IPCop
> compile ;-)
>
> Gilles
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Gilles Espinasse wrote:
> This was just to inform.
> You could require what you desire.
>
> For me, less requirement is better so we will adapt our scripts. I do
> not imagine I could make Ubuntu change something just to let IPCop
> compile ;-)
Ken Moffat wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 06:19:03PM +0200, Gilles Espinasse wrote:
>
>> This was just to inform.
>> You could require what you desire.
>>
>> For me, less requirement is better so we will adapt our scripts.
>> I do not imagine I could make Ubuntu change something just to let IP
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> You don't have to make Ubuntu change anything. Just make sure the user
> that's running your scripts (...or at least, I'm assuming that's how
> people do an "IPCop compile"?) is running bash. Then, if they already
> are running bash, also add a "set -B". The book instruct
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Bryan Kadzban wrote:
>
>> Just make sure the user that's running your scripts (...or at
>> least, I'm assuming that's how people do an "IPCop compile"?) is
>> running bash. Then, if they already are running bash, also add a
Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> I strongly suspect the user was running either sh (which was not linked
> to bash) or dash. I left that in there just in case they were running
> it, but someone decided to "set +B" in one of the startup files. No, I
> don't know why anyone would want to do this, but it is
13 matches
Mail list logo
