Goswin von Brederlow dixit:
>find -name \*mp3 -print0 | xargs -0 mpg123 -z
Hm. This just proves my example sucks ☺ Of course you've got
a point here, but I don't want to make another one…
//mirabile
--
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens
Thorsten Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for keeping me in the Cc ⺠(but I guess I earned that from a PR)
>
> Marco d'Itri dixit:
>
>>Bad idea
>
> Give the user the tools to shoot himself into the foot. Besides, dash
> is already using the debconf dance, so why discriminate other she
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
On Sat, Aug 04, 2007 at 01:41:52PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Aug 03, Thorsten Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Give the user the tools to shoot himself into the foot. Besides, dash
> > is already using the debconf dance, so why discriminate other shells
> > that are fine to do it acco
On Aug 03, Thorsten Glaser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Give the user the tools to shoot himself into the foot. Besides, dash
> is already using the debconf dance, so why discriminate other shells
> that are fine to do it according to policy?
To reduce complexity. Complexity is bad.
> >bash (the
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 01:15:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:13:38PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 06:54:49AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > diversions are far from being atomic.
> > True, but it is persistent across upgrades and doesn't re
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 06:24:52PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 01:15:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:13:38PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 06:54:49AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > diver
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 01:15:38PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:13:38PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 06:54:49AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > diversions are far from being atomic.
> > True, but it is persistent across upgrades and doesn't re
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 10:13:38PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 06:54:49AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > diversions are far from being atomic.
> True, but it is persistent across upgrades and doesn't require any
> particular support from the package.
Is it a bug (or a mis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> 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 i
Oleg Verych dixit:
>02-08-2007, Peter Samuelson:
>> unset foo
>> [ -n $foo ] && echo foo is non-empty
>> [[ -n $foo ]] && echo foo is non-empty
>>
>> As you can see, only the second one works.
True, that's why the Korn shell invented [[.
>Not quoting possible empty argument is a script wr
Thanks for keeping me in the Cc ☺ (but I guess I earned that from a PR)
Marco d'Itri dixit:
>Bad idea
Give the user the tools to shoot himself into the foot. Besides, dash
is already using the debconf dance, so why discriminate other shells
that are fine to do it according to policy?
>bash (the
[Oleg Verych]
> Not quoting possible empty argument is a script writing bug.
Not when you use [[. This is exactly how [[ is supposed to work; it is
explicitly defined to be shell syntax, as opposed to a builtin command,
so it is allowed to "cheat" with argument quoting. If you don't like
that,
>> unset foo
>> [ -n $foo ] && echo foo is non-empty
>> [[ -n $foo ]] && echo foo is non-empty
>>
>> As you can see, only the second one works.
[]
> BTW, i've provided patch in the BTS for dash's test built-in to have
> arithmetic checking of an empty argument and zero right. This was nearly
02-08-2007, Peter Samuelson:
>
> [Pierre Habouzit]
>> the 3 biggest problems I've seen are:
>>=20
>> * [[ for test, trivial: add it as a test alias, and also check for ]]
>> termination in the test.c builtin.
>
> Ummm, [[ is not the same as [. (If they were the same, there would
> have bee
On Thu, 02 Aug 2007, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit dixit:
>
> >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dash/+bug/61463
>
> This is just clueless script writers and general whining; these
> issues could be fixed one by one. (Actually, even with current
> Debian policy, they're b
[Josselin Mouette]
> I guess the idea behind making dash the default /bin/sh is not only to
> increase speed but also, in the end, to downgrade bash's priority.
As the one proposing it as a release goal, I can confirm that this is
not the case. The only idea behind it for me is to increase speed
On Aug 02, Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess the idea behind making dash the default /bin/sh is not only to
> increase speed but also, in the end, to downgrade bash's priority.
I don't think so.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Pierre Habouzit dixit:
>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/dash/+bug/61463
This is just clueless script writers and general whining; these
issues could be fixed one by one. (Actually, even with current
Debian policy, they're bugs.)
> * [[ for test, trivial: add it as a test alias,
[Pierre Habouzit]
> the 3 biggest problems I've seen are:
>
> * [[ for test, trivial: add it as a test alias, and also check for ]]
> termination in the test.c builtin.
Ummm, [[ is not the same as [. (If they were the same, there would
have been no need to invent [[.) They behave quite
Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I guess the idea behind making dash the default /bin/sh is not only to
> increase speed but also, in the end, to downgrade bash's priority.
I think that's going to be practically impossible. Removing packages from
essential is a ton of work for what
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 02:19:41PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> 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-t
Le mercredi 01 août 2007 à 14:18 -0700, Steve Langasek a écrit :
> 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 wa
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 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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
* 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 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 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
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
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
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 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
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
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-
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
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
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
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, 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.
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,
66 matches
Mail list logo
