John Hasler wrote:
> There is no need to make ash your system shell just because a few packages
> depend on it.
Of course the fact that ash is:
* much, much faster
* less memory hungry
* unlikely to teach you bad habits, if you care about learning proper
POSIX shell scripting
Are all good reas
On Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 09:58:05PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
| dman wrote:
| > I use bash as my shell. However the depends for initrd and/or
| > kernel-image want ash,...
|
| Fine, but if they really need it they have to call it as 'ash' or they are
| buggy.
I guess you mean at runtime, not in t
dman wrote:
> I use bash as my shell. However the depends for initrd and/or
> kernel-image want ash,...
Fine, but if they really need it they have to call it as 'ash' or they are
buggy.
> ...so /bin/sh is ash.
You shouldn't need that: see above. While in theory /bin/sh -> ash should
work since
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Craig Dickson wrote:
>dman wrote:
>
>> I use bash as my shell. However the depends for initrd and/or
>> kernel-image want ash, so /bin/sh is ash.
>
>I have ash installed also, but my /bin/sh --> bash. So I don't think that
>the ash install script makes that association, at le
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 09:26:42AM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote:
| dman wrote:
|
| > I use bash as my shell. However the depends for initrd and/or
| > kernel-image want ash, so /bin/sh is ash.
|
| I have ash installed also, but my /bin/sh --> bash. So I don't think that
| the ash install script ma
dman wrote:
> I use bash as my shell. However the depends for initrd and/or
> kernel-image want ash, so /bin/sh is ash.
I have ash installed also, but my /bin/sh --> bash. So I don't think that
the ash install script makes that association, at least not if it's
already pointing elsewhere.
Craig
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 10:31:29PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
| on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 12:54:40AM -0400, dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
| > On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 08:23:55PM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote:
| > | Branden Robinson wrote:
| > |
| > | > * if your /bin/sh is ash, you will likely have
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 12:33:08AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> and just in case it is not obvious (or too scary)...
>
> If you have sh linked to ash:
> $ rm /bin/sh
> $ ln -s /bin/bash /bin/sh
> install, or whatever>
>
> ...is now working away to install the 58 broken packages I accumulated
> ove
Folks, just so you know, cc'ing Branden on mail also sent to two mailing
lists that he reads is not a recipe for avoiding being turned into a
toasty flamed thing.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 12:33:08AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
>
> > and just in case it is not obvious (or too scary)...
> >
> > If you have sh linked to ash:
> > $ rm /bin/sh
> > $ ln -s /bin/bash /bin/sh
> > install, or whatever>
> >
> > ...is now w
ima del mondo perso nel vivere profondo!
- Original Message -
From: "Zephaniah E. Hull" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bruce Sass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Branden Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ;
;
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2001 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: ALERT: XFree86 4.1.0-3 maintainer scripts hosed; please wait
for 4.1.0-4
On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 12:33:08AM -0600, Bruce Sass wrote:
> and just in case it is not obvious (or too scary)...
>
> If you have sh linked to ash:
> $ rm /bin/sh
> $ ln -s /bin/bash /bin/sh
> install, or whatever>
>
> ...is now working away to install the 58 broken packages I accumulated
> ov
On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Folks might want to wait for 4.1.0-4. I'm preparing it now.
>
> Several bugs have already been filed; no one needs to add to them. The
> problem is understood, and the fix has been written and tested.
>
> If you already have 4.1.0-3 installed succes
on Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 12:54:40AM -0400, dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 08:23:55PM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote:
> | Branden Robinson wrote:
> |
> | > * if your /bin/sh is ash, you will likely have this problem
> |
> | Why would this be the case? I thought all Debian sys
On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 08:23:55PM -0700, Craig Dickson wrote:
| Branden Robinson wrote:
|
| > * if your /bin/sh is ash, you will likely have this problem
|
| Why would this be the case? I thought all Debian systems (well, I don't
| know about pre-Potato versions) had /bin/sh as a symlink pointin
on Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 08:23:55PM -0700, Craig Dickson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > * if your /bin/sh is ash, you will likely have this problem
>
> Why would this be the case? I thought all Debian systems (well, I don't
> know about pre-Potato versions) had /bin/sh
Branden Robinson wrote:
> * if your /bin/sh is ash, you will likely have this problem
Why would this be the case? I thought all Debian systems (well, I don't
know about pre-Potato versions) had /bin/sh as a symlink pointing to bash.
Wouldn't it sort of be asking for problems to have a non-standar
Folks might want to wait for 4.1.0-4. I'm preparing it now.
Several bugs have already been filed; no one needs to add to them. The
problem is understood, and the fix has been written and tested.
If you already have 4.1.0-3 installed successfully, there is nothing to
worry about.
Data points:
*
18 matches
Mail list logo
