Chris J. Breisch writes:
Chris, Achim, please figure out who's going to maintain the package.
If you like, you can even do this together.
I'm willing to defer to Achim, since he already has some patches, but
I'm flexible.
So let me try to roll a test package this weekend. I will not try to
On Mar 13 17:29, Achim Gratz wrote:
Chris J. Breisch writes:
Chris, Achim, please figure out who's going to maintain the package.
If you like, you can even do this together.
I'm willing to defer to Achim, since he already has some patches, but
I'm flexible.
So let me try to roll a
Greetings, Achim Gratz!
Chris J. Breisch writes:
Chris, Achim, please figure out who's going to maintain the package.
If you like, you can even do this together.
I'm willing to defer to Achim, since he already has some patches, but
I'm flexible.
So let me try to roll a test package this
On Mar 11 16:58, Chris J. Breisch wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 6 14:40, Ken Brown wrote:
On 3/3/2014 10:05 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 3 08:55, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 2/26/2014 5:07 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Weird, I was pretty sure we already have an /etc/shells file
On Mar 11 22:19, Achim Gratz wrote:
Corinna Vinschen writes:
Thanks for finding this one! Unfortunately David has left us,
apparently.
Isn't it that a bit too short a time to come to this conclusion?
Is anybody willing to take over maintainership of the base-files
package?
Seeing
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 11 22:19, Achim Gratz wrote:
Corinna Vinschen writes:
Thanks for finding this one! Unfortunately David has left us,
apparently.
Isn't it that a bit too short a time to come to this conclusion?
Is anybody willing to take over maintainership of the base-files
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 6 14:40, Ken Brown wrote:
On 3/3/2014 10:05 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 3 08:55, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 2/26/2014 5:07 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Weird, I was pretty sure we already have an /etc/shells file installed
by default. Apparently not.
Corinna Vinschen writes:
Thanks for finding this one! Unfortunately David has left us,
apparently.
Isn't it that a bit too short a time to come to this conclusion?
Is anybody willing to take over maintainership of the base-files
package?
Seeing that I have additional patches that David
On Mar 6 14:40, Ken Brown wrote:
On 3/3/2014 10:05 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 3 08:55, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 2/26/2014 5:07 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Weird, I was pretty sure we already have an /etc/shells file installed
by default. Apparently not. So, shan't we add one?
On 3/3/2014 10:05 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 3 08:55, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 2/26/2014 5:07 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Weird, I was pretty sure we already have an /etc/shells file installed
by default. Apparently not. So, shan't we add one?
/bin/sh
/bin/bash
/bin/dash
On Mar 3 16:05, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Mar 3 08:55, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 2/26/2014 5:07 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Weird, I was pretty sure we already have an /etc/shells file installed
by default. Apparently not. So, shan't we add one?
/bin/sh
/bin/bash
On 2/26/2014 5:07 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Weird, I was pretty sure we already have an /etc/shells file installed
by default. Apparently not. So, shan't we add one?
/bin/sh
/bin/bash
/bin/dash
/bin/mksh
/bin/zsh
/usr/bin/sh
/usr/bin/bash
/usr/bin/dash
Greetings, Charles Wilson!
Speaking of base-files, version 4.1-2 has been in test now for over two
years...works fine here and fixes a problem with $TEMP and other
standard variable names: 4.1-1 set both $TEMP and $temp, but these are
not distinguished by native processes, leading to
On Mar 3 08:55, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 2/26/2014 5:07 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Weird, I was pretty sure we already have an /etc/shells file installed
by default. Apparently not. So, shan't we add one?
/bin/sh
/bin/bash
/bin/dash
/bin/mksh
/bin/zsh
/usr/bin/sh
On Feb 27 08:09, Dirk Fassbender wrote:
Am 27.02.2014 01:45, schrieb Jim Burwell:
On 2/26/2014 16:29, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:26:59PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
The common case would be for a shell to show up in /etc/shells. Under
Fedora adds the shell to
On Feb 25 18:37, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
On 2/25/2014 6:24 PM, Jim Burwell wrote:
On 2/25/2014 13:55, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 25 13:52, Jim Burwell wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed after installing an update the Cygwin64 appears to ignore
the contents of the shell field in /etc/passwd. I
On 2/26/2014 02:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 25 18:37, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
On 2/25/2014 6:24 PM, Jim Burwell wrote:
On 2/25/2014 13:55, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 25 13:52, Jim Burwell wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed after installing an update the Cygwin64 appears to ignore
the
On 2/26/2014 15:53, Jim Burwell wrote:
On 2/26/2014 02:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 25 18:37, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
On 2/25/2014 6:24 PM, Jim Burwell wrote:
On 2/25/2014 13:55, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 25 13:52, Jim Burwell wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed after installing an
On 2014-02-27 01:03, Jim Burwell wrote:
On 2/26/2014 15:53, Jim Burwell wrote:
On 2/26/2014 02:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 25 18:37, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
On 2/25/2014 6:24 PM, Jim Burwell wrote:
On 2/25/2014 13:55, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 25 13:52, Jim Burwell wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 01:16:28AM +0100, Peter Rosin wrote:
On 2014-02-27 01:03, Jim Burwell wrote:
On 2/26/2014 15:53, Jim Burwell wrote:
On 2/26/2014 02:07, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 25 18:37, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
On 2/25/2014 6:24 PM, Jim Burwell wrote:
On 2/25/2014 13:55,
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:26:59PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
The common case would be for a shell to show up in /etc/shells. Under
Fedora adds the shell to /etc/shells when the shell package is
installed. I don't see any reason for us to do anything different.
Rephrasing that in English:
On 2/26/2014 16:29, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:26:59PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
The common case would be for a shell to show up in /etc/shells. Under
Fedora adds the shell to /etc/shells when the shell package is
installed. I don't see any reason for us to
Am 27.02.2014 01:45, schrieb Jim Burwell:
On 2/26/2014 16:29, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 07:26:59PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
The common case would be for a shell to show up in /etc/shells. Under
Fedora adds the shell to /etc/shells when the shell package is
Hi,
I've noticed after installing an update the Cygwin64 appears to ignore
the contents of the shell field in /etc/passwd. I normally run
/bin/tcsh as my shell, and changing this field used to result in any new
login shells running tcsh. Now it just runs bash regardless.
Has something changed?
On Feb 25 13:52, Jim Burwell wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed after installing an update the Cygwin64 appears to ignore
the contents of the shell field in /etc/passwd. I normally run
/bin/tcsh as my shell, and changing this field used to result in any new
login shells running tcsh. Now it just
Greetings, Jim Burwell!
Please don't attach to existing threads, if you're opening a new topic.
Post a new message to the list instead.
I've noticed after installing an update the Cygwin64 appears to ignore
the contents of the shell field in /etc/passwd. I normally run
/bin/tcsh as my shell,
On 2/25/2014 13:55, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 25 13:52, Jim Burwell wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed after installing an update the Cygwin64 appears to ignore
the contents of the shell field in /etc/passwd. I normally run
/bin/tcsh as my shell, and changing this field used to result in any new
On 2/25/2014 6:24 PM, Jim Burwell wrote:
On 2/25/2014 13:55, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Feb 25 13:52, Jim Burwell wrote:
Hi,
I've noticed after installing an update the Cygwin64 appears to ignore
the contents of the shell field in /etc/passwd. I normally run
/bin/tcsh as my shell, and
28 matches
Mail list logo
