Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> To be frank, I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck.
> >> Basically, you're trying to move bash into the same category as awk,
> >> where it's not explic
ich bin doch nicht schwul. A Client is interested in seeing offers for
TWO SPACES at any Atlanta Area Cemetery, including Cemeteries in Fulton,
Cobb and Dekalb Counties of Georgia. It has proven especially difficult
for consumers.
die sie ja vor Augen hat.
%^G*** CNHC *** CNHC *** CNHC ***
Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> To be frank, I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck.
>> Basically, you're trying to move bash into the same category as awk,
>> where it's not explicitly essential and can be handled by something
>> akin
On 23 Nov 2006 01:15:28 +0200, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit
> requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
> "need" bash to make them work. someone may then provide a patch to
> "make bash go away". I sugge
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006 16:42:45 +0100, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 01:15:28AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
>> I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit
>> requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
>> "need" bash to make the
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:41:08PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> Most hardware that was nice and shiny back in 2002 wasn't exactly
> underpowered, seeing as the Pentium 4 and Athlon Palomino was what was
> used back then. So, I kind of doubt that the statement was concerning
> Woody. Try Potato
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 10:45:18PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.7.2.2
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Hi,
>
> Some source packages generate binary packages using the same name as
> another source package. For example, see the 'qd' source package
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.2
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
Some source packages generate binary packages using the same name as
another source package. For example, see the 'qd' source package, and
the 'qd' binary package generated by the kfolding source package (in
contrib).
Some tools don'
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:46 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Well, let's hope people don't use any of the non-SuSv3 features of cat
> > in their shell scripts...
>
> Why? Who cares?
>
> This is some huge amount of work for some very little be
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:09:49PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>
> Now the choice of 464kB or 4528kB on a desktop where you're actually
> using the shell for interactive things is probably not a big deal,
> personally I'd never use dash, posh,
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
> > scripts.
>
> Exactly the *point*. So why isn't this your target?
>
> > Some prefer bash and see no problems. Others co
David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:20:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > > I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
> > > scripts.
> >
> > Exactly the *point*. So why i
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> To be frank, I don't think you're going to have a lot of luck. Basically,
> you're trying to move bash into the same category as awk, where it's not
> explicitly essential and can be handled by something akin t
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:07 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:49:10PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > There's a difference between requiring maintainer scripts to say
> > > /bin/bash if they n
"Martijn van Oosterhout" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 23 Nov 2006 13:43:52 +0200, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There's a difference between requiring maintainer scripts to say
> /bin/bash if they need bash constructs and rewriting existing scripts
> to work with some generic shel
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> - sort earlier than all the non-letters.
>>> + sort earlier than all the non-letters and so that a tilde
>>> + sorts before anything, even
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Here's a new version of the Policy patch for ~ in version numbers that
>> hopefully incorporates all of the suggestions.
> You will hate me for this one :-)
Oh, it's fine. We haven't worked out how
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:56:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:46 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Well, let's hope people don't use any of the non-SuSv3 features of cat
> > in their shell scripts...
>
> Why? Who cares?
Well, be honest. Have you ever used any
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:46 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> Well, let's hope people don't use any of the non-SuSv3 features of cat
> in their shell scripts...
Why? Who cares?
This is some huge amount of work for some very little benefit.
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitall
Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Russ, I'm CC'ing - please tell if you'd rather read the list.
I read the list (both of them); no need to cc.
> I agree. Your suggestion solves this for all parties. The policy stays
> intact, but the underlying dependencies need an improvement. The proble
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 04:42:45PM +0100, Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 01:15:28AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit
> > requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
> > "need" bash to
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:20:03AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
> > scripts.
>
> Exactly the *point*. So why isn't this your target?
>
> > Some prefer bash and see no
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 11:23:23AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:50 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > I'm not suggesting to remove features from essential, but I think the
> > policy should take the shells as special case, because the
> > sh-compliances (SusV/POSIX) itself
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:07 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:49:10PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > There's a difference between requiring maintainer scripts to say
> > /bin/bash if they need bash constructs and rewriting existing scripts
> > to wor
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:50 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> I'm not suggesting to remove features from essential, but I think the
> policy should take the shells as special case, because the
> sh-compliances (SusV/POSIX) itself is a matter of its own. There are
> no viable alternative implementation of
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
> scripts.
Exactly the *point*. So why isn't this your target?
> Some prefer bash and see no problems. Others consider bash's memory
> consumption a problem when compared to o
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:49:10PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
[snip]
>
> There's a difference between requiring maintainer scripts to say
> /bin/bash if they need bash constructs and rewriting existing scripts
> to work with some generic shell. The former is going to be *much*
> easier.
On 23 Nov 2006 13:43:52 +0200, Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bash is not essential for running Debian. It is possible to run old
PCs and old laptops completely free of bash. The point here is not the
disk consumption, but the reduced memory constrainsts. When scripts
are written with only
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:54:46PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:41:08PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> >
> > And compared to dash, the difference is vast:
> >
> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 80200 2006-11-21 16:36 /bin/dash
> >
> > RSS for dash on sid seems to be 464kB.
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:41:08PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
>
> And compared to dash, the difference is vast:
>
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 80200 2006-11-21 16:36 /bin/dash
>
> RSS for dash on sid seems to be 464kB. No woody to compare with.
dash in woody was still called ash.
Cheers,
--
B
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:09:49PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 06:37:52PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > Somehow I doubt that you used today's version of bash (which I bet
> > is a lot bigger and more memory-consuming due to new features).
>
> Comparing bash fro
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 06:37:52PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> Somehow I doubt that you used today's version of bash (which I bet
> is a lot bigger and more memory-consuming due to new features).
Comparing bash from woody and sid, respectively:
-rwxr-xr-x root/root511400 2002-04-08 21:07
Hi,
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Here's a new version of the Policy patch for ~ in version numbers that
> hopefully incorporates all of the suggestions.
You will hate me for this one :-)
> @@ -2713,7 +2713,15 @@
> which may be empty) are compared lexically. If a differen
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 09:16:15AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:43 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> >
> > Bash is not essential for running Debian. It is possible to run old
> > PCs and old laptops completely free of bash. The point here is not the
> > disk consumption, b
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:43 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> >
> > Bash is not essential for running Debian. It is possible to run old
> > PCs and old laptops completely free of bash. The point here is not the
> > disk consumption, but the reduced memor
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:43 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
>
> Bash is not essential for running Debian. It is possible to run old
> PCs and old laptops completely free of bash. The point here is not the
> disk consumption, but the reduced memory constrainsts. When scripts
> are written with only "sh" i
On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 01:15:28AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit
> requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
> "need" bash to make them work. someone may then provide a patch to
> "make bash go away". I suggest removin
Marvin Renich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061123 06:56]:
> >
> > But for the shells there are. I think the Policy should exempt shells
> > and require that if package is not POSIX/Susv -compiant, it needs to
> > announce dependance on a particular shell -- wher
* Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061123 06:56]:
>
> But for the shells there are. I think the Policy should exempt shells
> and require that if package is not POSIX/Susv -compiant, it needs to
> announce dependance on a particular shell -- where it bash, tcsh,
> pdksh ..., if it uses those shells
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit requirement
> > for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages "need" bash to make
> > them work. someone may then provide a patch to "make ba
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 01:15 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> >
> > I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit
> > requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
> > "need" bash to make them work. someone may then prov
41 matches
Mail list logo
