Hello,
This patch is food for thought. i looked closer at what util-linux
does (ugh) and found that their exit codes are what swapon/swapoff
return. so this is an alternative patch that behaves the same way. I
thought its possible there are shell scripts out there that are
interested in the ex
I'm weary about ifdef statements and it doesn't look like this would
handle future versions of webkit anyway.
--Carlos
On 2/9/14, Quentin Rameau wrote:
> Here is another patch, I'm not sure we should handle multiple versions
> of webkitgtk. But as this bug is corrected in newer (recent, stable)
Here is another patch, I'm not sure we should handle multiple versions
of webkitgtk. But as this bug is corrected in newer (recent, stable)
versions of webkitgtk, should we remove the needless workaround and
assume user has a valid version of webkitgtk ?
0001-Webkitgtk-1.11.5-fixes-anchor-title-h
* sin [2014-02-07 21:26:11 +]:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 05:26:54PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> > note that strake got that init code is from Rich Felker
> > and there is more to it than that code.. (you may find
> > related discussions on the musl mailing list archive,
> > he also planned t
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 01:36:21PM -0500, Bryan Bennett wrote:
> Well, damnit. Gmail's web interface strikes again...
>
> As I was saying...
>
> I've not had the chance to try this out myself, but I'm curious what
> this provides
> (or doesn't provide, given the collective mindsets on this mailin
This is great! I was just having a discussion about someone for a
non-x11 keyboard binding system!
Thanks for the link
Calvin Morrison
On 9 February 2014 05:32, Raphaël Proust wrote:
> Although taking a different approach (conf file parsed at start-up,
> additional features), the sxhkd/shkd mig
Well, damnit. Gmail's web interface strikes again...
As I was saying...
I've not had the chance to try this out myself, but I'm curious what
this provides
(or doesn't provide, given the collective mindsets on this mailinglist, myself
included) that something like minirc[1] does or doesn't do.
In
I've not had the chance to try this out myself, but I'm curious what
this provides
(or doesn't provide, given the collective mindsets on this mailinglist, myself
included) that something like minirc[1] does or doesn't do.
In particular, Minirc is a
On 2014-02-09 14:18:01 +0100, Jens Staal wrote:
> have a look at the poetic license
>
> http://www.genaud.net/2005/10/poetic-license/
>
> ... its cute while still saying everything that is needed.
...and almost certainly not legally tested.
pgpb36Q16Si39.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Sunday 09 February 2014 01:22:00 Calvin Morrison wrote:
> I h8 licensing schemes which make me read the text... somebody call
> their lawyer and sue, looks like mit is not 4 me.
have a look at the poetic license
http://www.genaud.net/2005/10/poetic-license/
... its cute while still saying eve
On 2014-02-09 11:03:13 +, Rob wrote:
> Regarding EXIT_SUCCESS, I think this is perhaps a bit picky, 0 is
> perfectly fine and besides, every non-trivial shell script hard codes
> stdout and stderr: 2>&1.
Eh, it probably doesn't matter. It was more a small comment about
portability to "unknown"
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 10:34:31PM -0500, Carlos Torres wrote:
> Hi sin,
> attached are two patches for the -a flag on swapon and swapoff. there
> is room for improvement. and cleaning up, but i wasn't sure how you
> might want it organized. i altered the error handling a little bit,
> since it
On 09/02/14, Chris Down wrote:
On 2014-02-09 01:43:55 -0500, Calvin Morrison wrote:
Surely the user knows what shell they are using? Sure it's a valid
point, but almost irrelevant at the same time. Who cares about their
shell behavior? If they think it's an issue, then they need not run
any com
Although taking a different approach (conf file parsed at start-up,
additional features), the sxhkd/shkd might be of interest.
The former is for X and the latter for the console. The two have
compatible configuration files formats.
https://github.com/baskerville/sxhkd
https://github.com/baskervill
Calvin Morrison:
> On 9 February 2014 01:07, Chris Down wrote:
> > - You are using system(), which is highly unportable and extremely
> > fragile;
>
> I'm not so sure. What's a better solution?
http://lubutu.com/code/spawning-in-unix
On 2014-02-09 01:43:55 -0500, Calvin Morrison wrote:
> Surely the user knows what shell they are using? Sure it's a valid
> point, but almost irrelevant at the same time. Who cares about their
> shell behavior? If they think it's an issue, then they need not run
> any commands. I assume people are
16 matches
Mail list logo
