On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 12:15 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm calling on votes on the following options:
>
> | 1. The Technical Committee refuses to overrule the udev maintainer, as
> | requested by Bug 539158. The committee suggests that the policy
> | maintainers document in the policy
On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I'm calling on votes on the following options:
>
> | 1. The Technical Committee refuses to overrule the udev maintainer, as
> | requested by Bug 539158. The committee suggests that the policy
> | maintainers document in the policy what the current best p
* Andreas Barth (a...@not.so.argh.org) [090730 12:15]:
> | 1. The Technical Committee refuses to overrule the udev maintainer, as
> | requested by Bug 539158. The committee suggests that the policy
> | maintainers document in the policy what the current best practices on
> | providing printf (and s
Hi,
I'm calling on votes on the following options:
| 1. The Technical Committee refuses to overrule the udev maintainer, as
| requested by Bug 539158. The committee suggests that the policy
| maintainers document in the policy what the current best practices on
| providing printf (and similar fun
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 10:09 +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [090729 21:33]:
> > Andreas Barth writes:
> >
> > > As this is, I tend to the following resolution
> > >
> > > 1. The Technical Committee refuses to overrule the udev maintainer, as
> > > requested by Bug 5
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [090729 21:33]:
> Andreas Barth writes:
>
> > As this is, I tend to the following resolution
> >
> > 1. The Technical Committee refuses to overrule the udev maintainer, as
> > requested by Bug 539158. The committee suggests that the policy
> > maintainers document
Hi again,
fact is that the udev maintainer uses an idiom which is broken,
so I think your resolution 1 is flawed.
I propose that it be changed to have udev use #!/bin/dash (in
sid) and #!/bin/bash (in lenny) instead of #!/bin/sh as shebang
line, since otherwise, no action at all would be taken.
Andreas Barth writes:
> As this is, I tend to the following resolution
>
> 1. The Technical Committee refuses to overrule the udev maintainer, as
> requested by Bug 539158. The committee suggests that the policy
> maintainers document in the policy what the current best practices on
> providing p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Steve Langasek dixit:
>Have you looked at this set yet, by chance,
>to see if there are others besides printf that mksh doesn't share with dash
Here they are:
Builtins in mksh (-current from CVS), but not in dash (source from sid):
* bind (inte
* Thorsten Glaser (t...@mirbsd.de) [090729 16:46]:
> >So from that perspective, there are lots of POSIX failures. Do you think we
> >should treat [ specially, but not printf, because mksh happens to implement
> >the one as a built-in but not the other?
>
> I see that this weakens my argumentation
Steve Langasek dixit:
>You're aware that [ (test) is also not listed as a mandatory shell built-in,
>according to the POSIX reference you've cited?
Interesting.
>So from that perspective, there are lots of POSIX failures. Do you think we
>should treat [ specially, but not printf, because mksh h
11 matches
Mail list logo
