Re: Bug#881692: command-not-found: I re-wrote command-not-found

On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Julian Andres Klode <j...@debian.org> wrote: > (forwarding this to ubuntu-devel-discuss and Zygmunt) > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 10:33:39PM -0800, Shawn Landden wrote: >> Package: command-not-found >> Severity: wishlist >> >&

Re: Bug#881692: command-not-found: I re-wrote command-not-found

> > > Ruby is just a major no go. Re-written in C. And in the future, what about Lua? It is only 300KB. > At that system level, the best choices > are Perl, Shell, and C++. Maybe Python (on Ubuntu it's in ubuntu-minimal, > but in Debian it's only used by standard priority and less, perl on the

Re: Bug#881692: command-not-found: I re-wrote command-not-found

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 11:39 PM, Xen wrote: > Julian Andres Klode schreef op 14-11-2017 8:50: > > * You should not depend on grep, sed, coreutils, they are Essential. >> > > Can I ask what this means? > > I actually assume that these dependencies are not *required*, not that

Re: Bug#881692: command-not-found: I re-wrote command-not-found

On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 6:44 PM, Colin Watson <cjwat...@ubuntu.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 05:10:19PM -0800, Shawn Landden wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:50 PM, Julian Andres Klode <j...@debian.org> > > wrote: > > > * It needs to be transla

Re: Bug#881692: command-not-found: I re-wrote command-not-found

> * Did you test your format on a slow HDD with caches dropped? It >> must not be slower than the Python one (that one is way too slow >> already) - I did, it seems to be faster (0.4 vs 0.68 seconds) >> - I believe the database-based C rewrite was even much faster, >> though >> > I tested

Re: Bug#881692: command-not-found: I re-wrote command-not-found

On Nov 14, 2017 8:15 AM, "Julian Andres Klode" wrote: On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 03:35:02PM +, John Lenton wrote: > On 14 November 2017 at 12:34, Julian Andres Klode wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 01:00:54PM +0100, Zygmunt Krynicki wrote: > >> I would love