On Fri, 17 May 2013 13:42:30 +0200, Holger Levsen
wrote:
>On Freitag, 17. Mai 2013, Marc Haber wrote:
>> We're going to have a TC decision or a GR about this anyway.
>
>why do you think so?
Because I think that a decision of this magnitude should not be taken
by a single developer, not even by M'
On 2013-05-07 14:23:47 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Shells suitable for /bin/sh are currently bash, dash, mksh.
I forgot about that (partly because of workarounds), but due to the
SIGINT problem, I think that *currently*, among these 3 shells, bash
is the most suitable one, and mksh is a bit be
Hi Marc,
On Freitag, 17. Mai 2013, Marc Haber wrote:
> We're going to have a TC decision or a GR about this anyway.
why do you think so?
cheers,
Holger
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On Mon, 13 May 2013 02:31:02 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>Maybe kfreebsd will do, but as I explained at FOSDEM I plan to make udev
>depend on either upstart or systemd.
>I would rather not be the one who will choose which one of them, so
>I hope that we will get to a consensus abou
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>
> Andreas Beckmann debian.org> writes:
>
> > now might be the right time to start a discussion about release goals
> > for jessie. Here are some points that come into my mind right now (and
>
> * Resolve that /bin/sh issue (see the open RC
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:39:54PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> As for your requests of data: I do not provide them. As I said above,
> I???m pushing for freedom of choice, not switching the default; of course
> I???d be happy with the latter, even more so actually, but it must be a
> thing not
On 15-05-13 17:39, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> As for your requests of data: I do not provide them. As I said above,
> I’m pushing for freedom of choice, not switching the default; of course
> I’d be happy with the latter, even more so actually, but it must be a
> thing not driven by me;
I see.
In t
Hi Thorsten
On 11-05-13 20:26, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Steve Langasek debian.org> writes:
>
>> This is not a sensible goal. Choice of /bin/sh should *not* be the goal,
>> the goal should be to get a good, fast, minimal, policy-compliant /bin/sh
>> for *everyone*.
>
> Sure. We just disagree wh
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 02:40:39AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Steve Langasek [2013-05-11 09:33 -0700]:
> > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> > > While that might be of some interest the real goal of the change was
> > > to be able to have more than *2* packa
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:44:30PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:52:29PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Being able to choose between two entirely different desktop
> > environments, with different user experiences, is a good thing.
> > Being able to choose between two /
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 02:40:39AM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Steve Langasek [2013-05-11 09:33 -0700]:
> > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> > > While that might be of some interest the real goal of the change was
> > > to be able to have more than *2* packa
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 05:29:45PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2013-05-11 11:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
> > While that might be of some interest the real goal of the change was
> > to be able to have more than *2* packages provide /bin/sh.
> >
> > Currently, due to the totaly scre
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 05:33:44PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> Though zsh has an option to emulate sh, it may still not be completely
> compatible. Upstream fixes incompatibilities when it is easy. But some
> incompatibilities may remain. If sh needs special multibyte (UTF-8)
> support for some
Am 15.05.2013 02:12, schrieb Michael Biebl:
> Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
>> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>> This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
>>> more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I
On 05/15/2013 05:52 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> I have still hard time to consider that you absolutely did not mention
> something related to a bootloader.
I believe Phil Hands explained better than I would
what I tried to explain.
On 05/15/2013 05:52 AM, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> Like in the previo
On 05/14/2013 06:07 PM, Philip Hands wrote:
> He missed the fact that you were contrasting one non-crashing init, that
> is capable of restarting dead services, with another non-crashing
> init setup that is not able to do so (without help).
Oh, indeed I missed that point! Thanks Phil.
Thomas
-
Jonathan Dowland debian.org> writes:
> I think you are totally out of order, here. You could equally be
criticised
> of having your judgement clouded by your involvement with MirOS. That
would
I admit being biased for that very reason. And that’s also the reason
I try to push for freedom of choi
On 2013-05-07 14:23:47 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Shells suitable for /bin/sh are currently bash, dash, mksh.
[...]
> I have no idea whether yash or zsh can be made suitable, but I think
> both could, if the maintainers and possibly upstream are interested.
Though zsh has an option to emulate
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 06:26:40PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Oh, sorry, I forgot, you work for Canonical (which totally explains some
> of your writings in the other eMail too, which I’m not going to comment
> on). Of course, for *buntu people it’s not about choice.
I think you are totally o
Le mardi 14 mai 2013 à 23:26 +, brian m. carlson a écrit :
> For better or for worse, sysvinit provides a lot of modularity. systemd
> provides none of that modularity
Maybe you should read a bit about systemd before saying such nonsense.
The real-world systemd (not the imaginary software yo
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 08:59:57AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Helmut Grohne subdivi.de> writes:
>
> > What are the benefits of using shells other than dash for /bin/sh? (as
>
> Why does dash get special treatment, anyway? It was ???suddenly??? in
> Debian after having been used in Ubuntu, b
]] "brian m. carlson"
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:29:40AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> > On 05/15/2013 02:16 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > >Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
> > >>On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > >>>This is utter bull
]] "brian m. carlson"
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:12:10AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
> > > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > >> This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
> > >> mo
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:12:10AM +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
> > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >> This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
> >> more reliable as a whole than any ot
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:29:40AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 05/15/2013 02:16 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
> >Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
> >>On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >>>This is utter bullshit and you should already know i
> And, when it comes to processing, binary data is actually *easier* to
> process. Everyone who has ever written a text parser themselves will
> agree.
I guess everyone who has used grep, tr, sed and so on will disagree?
--
Salvo Tomaselli
http://web.student.chalmers.se/~saltom/
--
To UNSUBSC
On 05/15/2013 02:16 AM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet
Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
>> more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet to
>> see a use case where it is not bet
Am 15.05.2013 01:26, schrieb brian m. carlson:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
>> more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet to
>> see a use case where it is not bet
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
> more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet to
> see a use case where it is not better.
It is not better if you don't want proprietary
❦ 14 mai 2013 11:54 CEST, Thomas Goirand :
>> Yes of course, because a different init system will magically make your
>> other disk bootable.
>
> This is absolutely *NOT* what I said. Nothing in my message
> compares this or that init system. I just replied that when you
> have apache, it's easi
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 08:59:57AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Helmut Grohne subdivi.de> writes:
> > What are the benefits of using shells other than dash for /bin/sh? (as
> Why does dash get special treatment, anyway?
Because /bin/sh is special under Debian policy, as an essential interpre
On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 08:59 +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Helmut Grohne subdivi.de> writes:
>
> > What are the benefits of using shells other than dash for /bin/sh? (as
>
> Why does dash get special treatment, anyway? It was “suddenly“ in
> Debian after having been used in Ubuntu, but… there n
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:44:30PM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> ...
> forcing the rest of the world to conform to our worldview. One
> desktop environment, and an awful one at that, dictating the
> init system we use is a complete farce. Debian is a lot bigger
> than GNOME, and if we have to, I
Josselin Mouette writes:
> Le mardi 14 mai 2013 à 15:28 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
>> On 05/13/2013 06:05 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>> > Having a rock-stable PID 1 is nice and all, but it doesn’t help you if
>> > something important crashes. On a production server, if apache crashes
>> >
On 05/14/2013 04:51 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Yes of course, because a different init system will magically make your
> other disk bootable.
This is absolutely *NOT* what I said. Nothing in my message
compares this or that init system. I just replied that when you
have apache, it's easier to r
Helmut Grohne subdivi.de> writes:
> What are the benefits of using shells other than dash for /bin/sh? (as
Why does dash get special treatment, anyway? It was “suddenly“ in
Debian after having been used in Ubuntu, but… there never was an
evaluation of shells.
I still believe the codebase of mks
Le mardi 14 mai 2013 à 15:28 +0800, Thomas Goirand a écrit :
> On 05/13/2013 06:05 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Having a rock-stable PID 1 is nice and all, but it doesn’t help you if
> > something important crashes. On a production server, if apache crashes
> > and fails to reload properly beca
On 05/13/2013 06:05 AM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le dimanche 12 mai 2013 à 19:40 +0200, Helmut Grohne a écrit :
>> With all due respect, this might be utter bullshit, but is at least
>> [citation needed]. I have yet to see a failing pid 1 (be that sysv,
>> upstart or systemd). Acquiring data on f
2013/5/14 Игорь Пашев :
> 2013/5/13 Philipp Kern :
>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 08:46:23AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>>> There is no need for udev to be dependent upon a specific init
>>> system, other than laziness.
>>
>> Except if you want to receive device plug events as triggers to start
>> up /
2013/5/13 Philipp Kern :
> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 08:46:23AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> There is no need for udev to be dependent upon a specific init
>> system, other than laziness.
>
> Except if you want to receive device plug events as triggers to start
> up / shut down services. The separati
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 08:46:23AM +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
> There is no need for udev to be dependent upon a specific init
> system, other than laziness.
Except if you want to receive device plug events as triggers to start
up / shut down services. The separation then gets quite blurry with
who
On May 13, Philip Hands wrote:
> No matter what the technical merits, the inevitable flame war regarding
> copyright assignment seems very likely to render upstart a non-starter
> as an essential element of Debian.
I think that this is a reasonable element to consider in our decision
process.
-
On May 13, "gustavo panizzo " wrote:
> On 2013-05-12 21:31, m...@linux.it wrote:
> >Maybe kfreebsd will do, but as I explained at FOSDEM I plan to
> >make udev depend on either upstart or systemd.
> do you have a link to a presentation, blog post, or whatever
> explaining the rationale behind thi
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 12:05:59AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Having a rock-stable PID 1 is nice and all, but it doesn???t help you if
> something important crashes. On a production server, if apache crashes
> and fails to reload properly because the scripts don???t get the ordering
> right,
On 2013-05-12 21:31, m...@linux.it wrote:
Maybe kfreebsd will do, but as I explained at FOSDEM I plan to make
udev
depend on either upstart or systemd.
do you have a link to a presentation, blog post, or whatever explaining
the rationale behind this?
i didn't found anything on FOSDEM website
Marco d'Itri writes:
> On May 13, Holger Levsen wrote:
>
>> actually, while it has been brought up as a theoretical/wrong argument, that
>> we cannot switch our linux installation ship with $this init system, while
>> the
>> kfreebsd port uses $that init system, I'd say nobody is seriously sa
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 02:31:02AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 13, Holger Levsen wrote:
>
> > actually, while it has been brought up as a theoretical/wrong argument,
> > that
> > we cannot switch our linux installation ship with $this init system, while
> > the
> > kfreebsd port uses
On Du, 12 mai 13, 20:31:08, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
>
> The difference between a shell and an init system is that the former
> is directly exposed to the user while the latter will only be
> visible to developers and admins most of the time. It makes sense to
> be able to customize your u
❦ 11 mai 2013 22:08 CEST, Josselin Mouette :
>> I can't agree with having no choice with regard to init. We aren't
>> all using GNOME, and Debian is used in an extremely diverse set of
>> fields for a multitude of different purposes. No one init is
>> appropriate for all of these applications.
On May 13, Holger Levsen wrote:
> actually, while it has been brought up as a theoretical/wrong argument, that
> we cannot switch our linux installation ship with $this init system, while
> the
> kfreebsd port uses $that init system, I'd say nobody is seriously saying this
> now. We will supp
Hi,
On Montag, 13. Mai 2013, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> I was all for kfreebsd when it was proposed, but now that it exists and
> nobody uses it, I am appalled at the idea of using it as an excuse to
> stop making improvements to the linux ports.
actually, while it has been brought up as a theoret
Le dimanche 12 mai 2013 à 19:40 +0200, Helmut Grohne a écrit :
> With all due respect, this might be utter bullshit, but is at least
> [citation needed]. I have yet to see a failing pid 1 (be that sysv,
> upstart or systemd). Acquiring data on failure modes of any of those
> systems appears like a
2013/5/12 John Paul Adrian Glaubitz :
> Honestly, you simply can't expect every single package in Debian to run on
> any of the supported kernels. If systemd profits from the use of
> Linux-specific kernel features, which is a good thing in my humble opinion
> because Linux has many very advanced a
On 05/12/2013 07:40 PM, Helmut Grohne wrote:
With all due respect, this might be utter bullshit, but is at least
[citation needed]. I have yet to see a failing pid 1 (be that sysv,
upstart or systemd). Acquiring data on failure modes of any of those
systems appears like a difficult task and d-dev
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:08:21PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> This is utter bullshit and you should already know it. Systemd is much
> more reliable as a whole than any other implementation. I have yet to
> see a use case where it is not better.
With all due respect, this might be utter bull
On Du, 12 mai 13, 23:12:48, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Which is very different from being able to select, in d-i,
> what desktop you want (for example using the netinst CD).
This is already possible (from the boot menu).
Kind regards,
Andrei
--
http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser
Offtopic dis
On 05/12/2013 09:56 PM, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Not sure when you did it last (or rleigh or zigo) - but: Take a look at
> what CDs we over.
>
> What you hope - we already do. We have CDs which default to KDE, XFCE or
> LXDE for those who dislike the GNOME feature-removitis.
Which is very different f
On 13209 March 1977, Marc Haber wrote:
>>Like for everything in Debian, this is bound to someone killing
>>the concept of a default Desktop. It is indeed a shame that
>>nobody worked on that.
> What is planned to do so? I surely hope that we don't end up building
> Kebian, Gebian and Xebian Images,
On Sun, 12 May 2013 10:40:53 +0800, Thomas Goirand
wrote:
>On 05/12/2013 03:44 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
>> We all saw where GNOME took use with their lack of choice: an
>> unusable trainwreck. It's a disgrace that this shipped as the
>> default desktop for wheezy, it really is.
>
>Like for everythi
On 05/12/2013 03:44 AM, Roger Leigh wrote:
> We all saw where GNOME took use with their lack of choice: an
> unusable trainwreck. It's a disgrace that this shipped as the
> default desktop for wheezy, it really is.
Like for everything in Debian, this is bound to someone killing
the concept of a d
+++ Steve Langasek [2013-05-11 09:33 -0700]:
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > While that might be of some interest the real goal of the change was
> > to be able to have more than *2* packages provide /bin/sh.
>
> > Currently, due to the totaly screwed u
On Sat, 2013-05-11 at 22:08 +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 11 mai 2013 à 20:44 +0100, Roger Leigh a écrit :
> > I can't agree with having no choice with regard to init. We aren't
> > all using GNOME, and Debian is used in an extremely diverse set of
> > fields for a multitude of diffe
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 11 mai 2013 à 20:44 +0100, Roger Leigh a écrit :
>> We all saw where GNOME took use with their lack of choice: an
>> unusable trainwreck.
>
> This is your opinion. There are other users who happen to value features
> over configu
>Debian is about Free Software.
Actually, about Free Users, isn't it?
http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/freedom-for-users-not-for-software
bye,
//mirabilos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.or
2013/5/12 Josselin Mouette :
> GNOME depends on a working glibc, too. Does it dictate the C library?
Yes. Portability still makes sense. Portability is a part of the word
"Free" in "Free Software".
Debian is about Free Software.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.or
Le samedi 11 mai 2013 à 20:44 +0100, Roger Leigh a écrit :
> I can't agree with having no choice with regard to init. We aren't
> all using GNOME, and Debian is used in an extremely diverse set of
> fields for a multitude of different purposes. No one init is
> appropriate for all of these appli
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:52:29PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Being able to choose between two entirely different desktop
> environments, with different user experiences, is a good thing.
> Being able to choose between two /bin/sh shells or two /sbin/init
> implementations is not.
The shell
2013/5/11 Josselin Mouette :
> We have had two releases with kfreebsd, which failed to
> provide anything usable. Debian is only about Linux, and has always
> been.
I have some news about it ;-)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe".
Le samedi 11 mai 2013 à 18:53 +, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
> >I believe you are being needlessly rude right now. Please keep in mind
>
> Probably… but I think Canonical employees and *buntu developers have
> a conflict of interest, which *does* have “interesting” effects, such
> as wheezy re
On 2013-05-11 20:53, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> [...]
>> that:
>>
>> """
>> The Debian Project welcomes and encourages participation by everyone. """[1]
>>
>> That includes Canonical and *buntu.
>
> … but that doesn’t give either preferential treatment.
>
I never said that and I never said I took
Niels Thykier dixit:
>I believe you are being needlessly rude right now. Please keep in mind
Probably… but I think Canonical employees and *buntu developers have
a conflict of interest, which *does* have “interesting” effects, such
as wheezy releasing with different gcc versions being default ac
Le samedi 11 mai 2013 à 18:26 +, Thorsten Glaser a écrit :
> > See also: Linux is not about choice.
>
> Debian is not just about Linux.
Yes it is. We have had two releases with kfreebsd, which failed to
provide anything usable. Debian is only about Linux, and has always
been.
> In Debian, D
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 08:17:51PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Steve Langasek (2013-05-11 18:33:03)
> > On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > [...] the real goal of the change was to be able to have more than
> > > *2* packages provide /bin/sh.
>
On 2013-05-11 20:26, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Oh, sorry, I forgot, you work for Canonical (which totally explains some
> of your writings in the other eMail too, which I’m not going to comment
> on). Of course, for *buntu people it’s not about choice.
>
> Now please take that attitude and go back
Steve Langasek debian.org> writes:
> This is not a sensible goal. Choice of /bin/sh should *not* be the goal,
> the goal should be to get a good, fast, minimal, policy-compliant /bin/sh
> for *everyone*.
Sure. We just disagree which one that is.
> See also: Linux is not about choice.
Debian i
Quoting Steve Langasek (2013-05-11 18:33:03)
> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > [...] the real goal of the change was to be able to have more than
> > *2* packages provide /bin/sh.
>
> > Currently, due to the totaly screwed up way this is done, only dash
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 11:22:10AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 07:46:43PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 May 2013 16:46:46 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> > >On May 07, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > >> My stated goal here is, indeed, to be able to
Goswin von Brederlow web.de> writes:
> Add 2 more if dash and mksh build static flavours too. posh, ksh93,
mksh already builds a static flavour ;-) It’s just not an mksh-static
separate binary package because waldi, who kindly sponsored my first
several uploads, taught me that binary packages ar
On 2013-05-11 11:22 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> While that might be of some interest the real goal of the change was
> to be able to have more than *2* packages provide /bin/sh.
>
> Currently, due to the totaly screwed up way this is done, only dash or
> bash can be /bin/sh.
I think that
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 07:46:43PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 16:46:46 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> >On May 07, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >> My stated goal here is, indeed, to be able to run at least some useful
> >> configurations of a Debian installation without
On Tue, 07 May 2013 19:46:43 +0200
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2013 16:46:46 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
> >On May 07, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >> My stated goal here is, indeed, to be able to run at least some useful
> >> configurations of a Debian installation without *bot
On Tue, 7 May 2013 16:46:46 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>On May 07, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> My stated goal here is, indeed, to be able to run at least some useful
>> configurations of a Debian installation without *both* bash and dash
>> installed.
>What is the point?
A smaller f
On May 07, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> My stated goal here is, indeed, to be able to run at least some useful
> configurations of a Debian installation without *both* bash and dash
> installed.
What is the point?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Andreas Beckmann debian.org> writes:
> now might be the right time to start a discussion about release goals
> for jessie. Here are some points that come into my mind right now (and
* Resolve that /bin/sh issue (see the open RC bugs against dash which
just got ignored for a stable release for
85 matches
Mail list logo
