There is a big difference between Recommends and Depends. Depends are
required for a piece of software to work. Recommends should be installed
with a piece of software the majority of the time, but the software can
still work without them, although some features may be disabled. Suggests
are just
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 07:58:47PM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> Ok, now to the approved release goals:
> - full IPv6 support
What does that mean precisely? Drop all packages that don't support
IPv6? IPv6 shall be enabled if supported not too buggily? Something in
between? (I'm quite certain you don'
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 06:54:49AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:22:38PM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:38:41PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > > > > > Then he'll be able to move /bin/sh symlink on bash if he wants to.
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:30:33PM +0100, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Policy does not mandate that ALL Recommends: are to be installed. The
> new default makes Recommends: disappear completely - there would be no
> difference between Depends: and Recommends: just like there is a
> p
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:22:38PM -0700, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:38:41PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > > > > Then he'll be able to move /bin/sh symlink on bash if he wants to.
>
> > > > Right. Hence that's the point for the user to change /bin/
* Pierre Habouzit:
>
>> Well, bash is essential, so you have to have that one installed or else y=
> ou
>> have to scan all your packages for uses of bash and convert them.
>
> Let's make it a release goal !
In my TODO list. The quilt is one of main goals; not only bash->sh but
also awk->no awk.
* 31-07-2007, Marc Haber:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 19:09:10 + (UTC), Oleg Verych
>
>>- adduser is 48k of "unreadable perl mess"
>
> As former maintainer of adduser, I take offense here. Adduser has
> improved a lot in readability in the last three years.
This is a funny quote i've get from the `
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 06:00:21PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:53:03PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > OTOH, specifically using something else than /bin/sh for a fast
> > POSIX-with-the-extensions-Debian-mandates shell (i.e. forget posh, but dash
> > is
Hello alpha lovers,
I have a AlphaPC collecting dust in my apartment that should probably
go to someone who might actually put it to a good use. I'm in the New
York area so being nearby would make things easier but I'm willing to
work out shipping it somewhere if you're very keen.
--
Eric Dorlan
Package: pidgin
Severity: crashing
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
--- Please fill out the fields below. ---
Package name: kopete/pidgin
Version:
Upstream Author: [NAME ]
URL: [http://example.com]
License: [GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.]
Description: [DESCRIPTION]
After todays update
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> I mean, recommends means that having the recommends installed may e.g.
> enable some additionnal features in your package.
No, recommends means that:
This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
You're thinking of suggests:
This is used to
Neil Williams wrote:
> The problem is that with packages like gnome-devel and gnome-core-devel
> (re: anjuta) >50% will require SOME of the Recommended packages. As a
> long term anjuta user, I would estimate that <5% of all users need ALL
> Recommended packages.
>
> What is the anjuta / gnome-dev
Neil Williams wrote:
> And a script to implement that in every box I have to install. Again
> and Again and Again and
>
> You almost forcing me into maintaining a fork of apt that restores the
> current behaviour from the very start.
Forking apt and putting a line in a config file seem two q
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Yes, I never thought we were about to remove the fact that /bin/sh was
> a symlink that the user could be able to change whenever he wants. I
> don't think debconf questions or alike are wise FWIW though.
>
> In fact what happens currently with bash/dash is fine, just
> The problem is that with packages like gnome-devel and gnome-core-devel
> (re: anjuta) >50% will require SOME of the Recommended packages. As a
> long term anjuta user, I would estimate that <5% of all users need ALL
> Recommended packages.
Then the packages should not be in Recommends - Sugges
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Neil Williams wrote:
> Why would apt now force someone in my situation to add all these
> *unnecessary* packages
Because, if recommends were used properly, they wouldn't be unnecessary.
Also, nobody is forcing you to install anything. Recommends
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:49:27 +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> I'd really like it if we could keep apt-get as an advanced user tool;
> aptitude can be used in all the other cases.
The problem is that apt-get is *not* an advanced user tool. End users use
it because they see it referenced in all our d
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:59:13PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit dixit:
> >I don't see a valid reason for the
> >user to chose what lies behind /bin/sh.
> Debian policy allows it.
Debian Policy requires scripts that invoke /bin/sh to limit themselves to
the POSIX subset of func
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 22:40:44 +0200
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> > undone whenever I install a new box? I'll certainly need something like
> > that for the cross-built apt for Emdebian
> > - embedded devices will not co
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:52:46 +0200
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Recommends does NOT apply to everyone - that is Policy.
>
> : Recommends
> :
> : This declares a strong, but not absolute, dependency.
> : The Recommends field should list packages that would be found
> :
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:44:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Can we create the symlink in the postinst of base-files or something
>> else equally core, but only on initial installation or if the symlink
>> is missing?
> As long as the postinst of b
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We have frontends like aptitude to automatically install recommends.
>
> and it's the single frontend doing this: synaptic + apt-get are very
> common and there was no reason to duplicate this logic in all
> frontends.
Keeping the current apt default o
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 22:38 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:56:43PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2007, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > > We, the APT Development Team, will change apt to install recommended
> > > > packages by default on October 1st. This should
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:38:41PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > > > Then he'll be able to move /bin/sh symlink on bash if he wants to.
> > > Right. Hence that's the point for the user to change /bin/sh. :)
> > > I have no problem with dash being the default. I was just defending our
> > >
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:18:22PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:49:57PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Le mercredi 01 août 2007 à 22:22 +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > > There are embedded environments where 80KB is a concern.
>
> > I fail to see why you'd wan
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> There are embedded environments where 80KB is a concern. We're not at
> the level yet where we can reasonably support such environments, but
> there are people who are trying to change that, and I don't think we
> should make it harder for them by setting things up in a wa
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:44:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So how will be that achieved in a way that's persistant across upgrades,
> > if both debconf and alternatives are being rejected?
> Can we create the symlink in the postinst of base-files
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:49:57PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 01 août 2007 à 22:22 +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> > There are embedded environments where 80KB is a concern.
> I fail to see why you'd want to install any other shell than the
> smallest one on such an environmen
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:19:34PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
>
> Blindly installing all Recommends: is a BAD idea.
>
My laptop hard disk thought the same when apt asked to install 313 more
Recommended packages and ~900MB of new files. But probably my hard disk
is a stupid piece of old fashione
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> E.g. by filing bugs against package (and possibly NMU them) that
>> abuse the Recommends relationship.
>
> Like moving all Recommends: into Suggests?
Yes.
> Recommends does NOT apply to everyone - that is Policy.
Quoting Debian Policy 7.2:
: Recomm
Le mercredi 01 août 2007 à 22:22 +0200, Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
> There are embedded environments where 80KB is a concern.
I fail to see why you'd want to install any other shell than the
smallest one on such an environment.
--
.''`.
: :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So how will be that achieved in a way that's persistant across upgrades,
> if both debconf and alternatives are being rejected?
Can we create the symlink in the postinst of base-files or something else
equally core, but only on initial installation or i
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:14:14PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 19:28:27 +0200
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>
> > On Aug 01, Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > We, the APT Development Team, will change apt to install recommended
> > > packages by de
* Pierre Habouzit [Wed, 01 Aug 2007 22:30:34 +0200]:
> > > Then he'll be able to move /bin/sh symlink on bash if he wants to.
> > Right. Hence that's the point for the user to change /bin/sh. :)
> > I have no problem with dash being the default. I was just defending our
> > committment to
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:56:43PM +0200, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > We, the APT Development Team, will change apt to install recommended
> > > packages by default on October 1st. This should give enough time to
> > Why? What is the point?
>
> Fix Recomme
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:54:45PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 01, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's just one line in your apt.conf, as described in the original
> > announcement.
> That's just one line in the apt.conf of hundred of servers.
Don't tell me you manually
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is not a question of removing choice. This change in apt is the
> only thing that *gives* you a choice of installing recommends via apt.
> That the solution for disabling this in your use case is not immediately
> obvious is not a reason to not ad
Hi,
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 21:46, Neil Williams wrote:
> And a script to implement that in every box I have to install. Again
> and Again and Again and
Hu? You don't change any other configuration on those boxes? Nothing??
regards,
Holger
pgps3qpDnM8C4.pgp
Description: PGP s
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:22:58PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:11:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Aug 01, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > It being the smallest and fastest one doesn't really help if you're in a
> > > tight environment where you
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:05:37PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:57:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>> Okay, but that's not an argument. What would be the point for the
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:46:29PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> Recommends does NOT apply to everyone - that is Policy. What apt is now
> doing is undermining Policy by removing that CHOICE to not use any
> recommended packages.
No, what Policy says is:
`Recommends'
This declares
Le mercredi 01 août 2007 à 21:19 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:57:01 +0200
> Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Le mercredi 01 août 2007 à 19:14 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> > > Precisely - just what is the benefit?
> >
> > Stopping to get stupid bug r
> Currently, all you see is a package name - if the default apt behaviour
> was to display the description (ala aptitude) then the user can make an
> intelligent choice.
If the user is able to make an intelligent choice. Even after displaying
the long description for the Recommended packages, a
Me call Mikhail im designers. I drew and devised (that also as works)
exterior view OS. But im not programist. Im from the childhood to
mechtayu about such a OS. Possibly whether that association to me
pomozhet?
С уважением Михаил Якименко
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:11:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 01, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It being the smallest and fastest one doesn't really help if you're in a
> > tight environment where you want only one shell to be installed, and you
> > want to use a different
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:57:01 +0200
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le mercredi 01 août 2007 à 19:14 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> > Precisely - just what is the benefit?
>
> Stopping to get stupid bug reports from either users not having
> installed Recommends: and complaining ab
Mike Hommey dixit:
>Yeah, they should be given solaris's /bin/sh.
That's a Bourne shell, not a POSIX shell. Try /usr/xpg4/bin/sh there.
//mirabile
--
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> We have frontends like aptitude to automatically install recommends.
and it's the single frontend doing this: synaptic + apt-get are very
common and there was no reason to duplicate this logic in all
frontends.
> Why was such a huge change, totally o
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:57:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Okay, but that's not an argument. What would be the point for the user
>>> to change /bin/sh if Debian has already chosen the fastest and
> No - because the default is already in place in aptitude which is WHY I
> don't use aptitude. If apt goes the same way, the default configuration
> of each offers no choice.
>
> By the time I get a chance to switch that option off, the installation
> has added loads of JUNK that I do NOT want.
Le mercredi 01 août 2007 à 19:14 +0100, Neil Williams a écrit :
> Precisely - just what is the benefit?
Stopping to get stupid bug reports from either users not having
installed Recommends: and complaining about missing functionality, or
users complaining about non-essential Depends: bloating thei
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > We, the APT Development Team, will change apt to install recommended
> > packages by default on October 1st. This should give enough time to
> Why? What is the point?
Fix Recommends! These are nothing more than Suggests right now --
except in aptitu
On Aug 01, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> TBH, I think this is a very good idea. There are a lot of cases in the
> debian archive, were the package maintainer wants to express that a
> related package should really be installed by default, but is not really
> necessary in all cases.
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007, Neil Williams wrote:
> Recommends does NOT apply to everyone - that is Policy. What apt is now
> doing is undermining Policy by removing that CHOICE to not use any
> recommended packages.
It's the other way around; in the last months, I bumped plenty of
Recommends to *Depen
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:45:44 +0200
Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Precisely - just what is the benefit? I really don't think this is a
> > good idea.
>
> TBH, I think this is a very good idea. There are a lot of cases in the
> debian archive, were the package maintainer wants to
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:05:32PM +, Thorsten Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh dixit:
>
> >OTOH, specifically using something else than /bin/sh for a fast
> >POSIX-with-the-extensions-Debian-mandates shell
>
> No, that will not make sense. People who write #!/
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh dixit:
>OTOH, specifically using something else than /bin/sh for a fast
>POSIX-with-the-extensions-Debian-mandates shell
No, that will not make sense. People who write #!/bin/sh scripts
should be tought that they can only use so-and-so few things.
//mirabile
--
I bel
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:45:44PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 19:28:27 +0200 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> > > On Aug 01, Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > We, the APT Development Team, will chang
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:57:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Okay, but that's not an argument. What would be the point for the user
> > to change /bin/sh if Debian has already chosen the fastest and smallest
> > one ?
>
> Because Debian think
On 8/1/07, Reinhard Tartler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> (...)
> > I tried the sample commands and apt wanted to add HALF A GIGABYTE of
> > unnecessary stuff!!! Others may consider hard disc space cheap but, in
> > truth, hard disc space is not infinite
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 19:28:27 +0200
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>
>> On Aug 01, Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > We, the APT Development Team, will change apt to install recommended
>> > packages by default on October 1st. Thi
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 19:28:27 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> On Aug 01, Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > We, the APT Development Team, will change apt to install recommended
> > packages by default on October 1st. This should give enough time to
> Why? What is the poi
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Okay, but that's not an argument. What would be the point for the user
> to change /bin/sh if Debian has already chosen the fastest and smallest
> one ?
Because Debian thinks that the smallest and fastest one is dash, but the
user wants to run a gia
On Aug 01, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * the one unclever users have written with /bin/sh pointing to
> /bin/bash. For them, it's easy, just don't change /bin/sh on dash on
> upgrades. Do that only for new installations. And for them, the fix
> is quite easy, they st
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> So far this case has not been handled automatically and I do not think
> it is worth supporting because it would require creating stand-alone
> update-inetd packages for each kind of inetd.
I'm not at all surprised if there's some problem with the idea o
On Aug 01, Michael Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We, the APT Development Team, will change apt to install recommended
> packages by default on October 1st. This should give enough time to
Why? What is the point?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Aug 01, Thorsten Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Until now, /bin/sh used to be a symbolic link to /bin/bash, unless dash and,
> later, mksh offered to install themselves there instead, as per Debian poli-
> cy, which states that all POSIX compatible shells can be used as /bin/sh.
Bad idea s
On Aug 01, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It being the smallest and fastest one doesn't really help if you're in a
> tight environment where you want only one shell to be installed, and you
> want to use a different one from whatever Debian chose because of other
> reasons.
-rwxr-xr-
On Aug 01, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Again, the update-inetd interface is formally provided by
> > inet-superserver and not by update-inetd.
> So there's no allowance for a package that wants to interface with inetd if
> it's installed, but doesn't depend on inetd being install
Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> http://www.fifi.org/doc/debconf-doc/tutorial.html
This document is ancient and out of date. Please use the
debconf-devel(7) man page (in debconf-doc) instead.
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hi,
I have several "excuses" pages that resemble this one:
http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=darcs-buildpackage
This says that darcs-buildpackage has new bugs, and references #410838. But
#410838 is resolved in unstable and has been for ages -- since February.
Why is that still a reas
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 06:11:48PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 01 août 2007 à 18:00 +0200, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> > And wrt scripts out there, there is 2 kinds of scripts:
> > * the old one that are written by people on obsolete platforms where
> > the de facto standar
On Wed August 1 2007 11:04:04 am Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> http://buildd.debian.org/~jeroen/status/package.php?p=haskell-configfile
> and that it's a dependency of yours.
Yeah, I noticed that part. Actually it appears that GHC is generating
binaries that are crashing with a bus error on that p
Le mercredi 01 août 2007 à 18:00 +0200, Pierre Habouzit a écrit :
> And wrt scripts out there, there is 2 kinds of scripts:
> * the old one that are written by people on obsolete platforms where
> the de facto standard was a local ksh shell, and we can expect those
> to work properly on
* John Goerzen [Wed, 01 Aug 2007 10:56:08 -0500]:
> Hi,
> I have several "excuses" pages that resemble this one:
> http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=darcs-buildpackage
> This says that darcs-buildpackage has new bugs, and references #410838. But
> #410838 is resolved in unstable and ha
Le mercredi 01 août 2007 à 13:22 +, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
> While I don't have an issue with dash being the default /bin/sh we should
> implement a mechanism for the user to select which shell he wants there,
> via debconf.
I don't think so, no.
The default shell should be dash and there
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 05:47:59PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:59:13PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > Pierre Habouzit dixit:
> >
> > >I don't see a valid reason for the
> > >user to chose what lies behind /bin/sh.
> >
> > Debian policy allows it.
>
> Okay, but
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:56:08AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have several "excuses" pages that resemble this one:
>
> http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=darcs-buildpackage
>
> This says that darcs-buildpackage has new bugs, and references #410838. But
> #410838 is resolved i
On Wed, Aug 1, 2007 at 10:56:08 -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> http://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=darcs-buildpackage
>
> This says that darcs-buildpackage has new bugs, and references #410838. But
> #410838 is resolved in unstable and has been for ages -- since February.
It's not. unst
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Okay, but that's not an argument. What would be the point for the user
> to change /bin/sh if Debian has already chosen the fastest and smallest
> one ?
While we're at it, could we please set the freedesktop compatible
environment to Xfce?
--
Lo
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 12:53:03PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh dixit:
> > >There is just too much crap out there that thinks /bin/sh is bash.
> >
> > Not in Debian ??? /bin/sh scripts must be POSIX complian
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Henrique de Moraes Holschuh dixit:
> >There is just too much crap out there that thinks /bin/sh is bash.
>
> Not in Debian ??? /bin/sh scripts must be POSIX compliant and not use
No, not in Debian.
But in practice, if many people can't change that aw
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:59:13PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit dixit:
>
> >I don't see a valid reason for the
> >user to chose what lies behind /bin/sh.
>
> Debian policy allows it.
Okay, but that's not an argument. What would be the point for the user
to change /bin/sh if
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh dixit:
>There is just too much crap out there that thinks /bin/sh is bash.
Not in Debian – /bin/sh scripts must be POSIX compliant and not use
extensions, and with my experience from mksh (minus the “stop” alias
issue, which, with mksh R30, became a non-issue), and see
> Indeed, since #!/bin/sh scripts must not use non-POSIX features.
> Nevertheless, it _is_ possible to change /bin/sh.
>
.. and if the user changes the /bin/sh link, it is not the distributions
fault if things break. On the other side, it's probably morea easy for
users and less error-prone if
Pierre Habouzit dixit:
>I don't see a valid reason for the
>user to chose what lies behind /bin/sh.
Debian policy allows it.
>If he wants to use his favourite
>sh shell features in his scripts, he shall use #!/bin/favouritesh and
Indeed, since #!/bin/sh scripts must not use non-POSIX features.
* Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-08-01 15:36]:
> I was just doing a pbuider --update, it surprisingly failed due to a mismatch
> MD5 sum in dpkg.
>
> From the Release file:
> MD5sum: 7f4c3b629592a0ab17c924eff9795c4c
> SHA1: 40841d015920902a9b0051f1a4296113cc474490
> SHA2
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:46:32AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > debconf is definitely not the proper way. Using alternatives is.
>
> Remember you are dealing with essential stuff.
>
> /bin/sh must *NEVER*, not even for a milli-secon
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> debconf is definitely not the proper way. Using alternatives is.
Remember you are dealing with essential stuff.
/bin/sh must *NEVER*, not even for a milli-second, be unavailable. You are
only to change it using atomic operations, and when you are *
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:22:19PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> as shown in http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.release/17423
> there's currently a discussion to use dash as /bin/sh instead of GNU bash.
>
> Until now, /bin/sh used to be a symbolic link to /bin/bas
Hi everyone,
as shown in http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.release/17423
there's currently a discussion to use dash as /bin/sh instead of GNU bash.
Until now, /bin/sh used to be a symbolic link to /bin/bash, unless dash and,
later, mksh offered to install themselves there instead,
I was just doing a pbuider --update, it surprisingly failed due to a mismatch
MD5 sum in dpkg.
From the Release file:
MD5sum: 7f4c3b629592a0ab17c924eff9795c4c
SHA1: 40841d015920902a9b0051f1a4296113cc474490
SHA256: 4911981eaaee82b381b513ca0f41dc63a8be2b5c7bf0ba8f6cd6454ee8f3acf0
From the downloa
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Hello DDs,
>
> as gluck was running out of diskspace earlier today we would like to ask
> you to cleanup old files in your homedirectory on gluck.
gluck == people.debian.org == cvs.debian.org
(in case some are using only the aliased name)
At the same
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/01/07 02:02, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 04:01:29 +0200, Antonio Diaz Diaz
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> GNU Moe is a console text editor written to be stable, compact and
>> powerful. It is the middle point between GNU Ed and GNU
Hello DDs,
as gluck was running out of diskspace earlier today we would like to ask
you to cleanup old files in your homedirectory on gluck. We already
pinged those using lots of space, so got a little bit freed up, but
every bit helps, so please remove whatever is old and unneeded - or can
easily
On 8/1/07, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sounds like what I'm looking for but I have problems to implement this
> > hint. I tried pdebuild --hookdir $HOME/.pbuilder and also added
> > HOOKDIR=/home/myhome/.pbuilder to my .pbuilderrc but there is no visible
> > effect. Did I miss
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:08:44AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
>
> >>How about using pbuilder hooks? Something like $hookdir/C01_shell:
> >>
> >>--- 8< ---
> >>#!/bin/sh
> >>
> >>cd /tmp/buildd/*/debian/..
> >>/bin/sh < /dev/tty > /dev/tty
> >>--- 8<
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 12:42:02PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > The rationale for samba depending on update-inetd was that samba does *not*
> > depend on the availability of an inet superserver; it only depends on the
> > availability of the update-inetd interface, in order for its maintainer
> >
On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 04:01:29 +0200, Antonio Diaz Diaz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>GNU Moe is a console text editor written to be stable, compact and
>powerful. It is the middle point between GNU Ed and GNU Emacs, and it
>deliberately doesn't support multibyte encodings.
The last sentence rules i
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
How about using pbuilder hooks? Something like $hookdir/C01_shell:
--- 8< ---
#!/bin/sh
cd /tmp/buildd/*/debian/..
/bin/sh < /dev/tty > /dev/tty
--- 8< ---
you may even want to have some usable env, and enhance it that way:
[artemis] cat .pbu
100 matches
Mail list logo
