Re: [pacman-dev] Bash completion

2010-02-25 Thread Jeff
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:31:41AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > > > >No idea if these paths changed, but there are other tools which are in > >/usr/bin and not in /bin : > >expr,seq,sort,find > > > >And in /bin we have sed,grep,ls Of the 7 programs mentioned, only sed and ls are mandated to be in /

[pacman-dev] [PATCH] bash_completion: remove absolute utility paths again

2010-02-25 Thread Cedric Staniewski
The location of the used utilities may and does differ between various distributions and therefore absolute paths do not work well. Since the main purpose of its introduction was to avoid side-effects caused by aliases, it is sufficient to disable possible aliases temporarily by preceding the comma

Re: [pacman-dev] Bash completion

2010-02-25 Thread Cedric Staniewski
I think I found a solution for this path issue: http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/pacman-dev/2010-February/010449.html Cedric

Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] bash_completion: remove absolute utility paths again

2010-02-25 Thread Allan McRae
On 26/02/10 08:23, Cedric Staniewski wrote: The location of the used utilities may and does differ between various distributions and therefore absolute paths do not work well. Since the main purpose of its introduction was to avoid side-effects caused by aliases, it is sufficient to disable possi

Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] bash_completion: remove absolute utility paths again

2010-02-25 Thread Aaron Griffin
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Cedric Staniewski wrote: > The location of the used utilities may and does differ between various > distributions and therefore absolute paths do not work well. Since the > main purpose of its introduction was to avoid side-effects caused by > aliases, it is suffic

Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] bash_completion: remove absolute utility paths again

2010-02-25 Thread Cedric Staniewski
On 25.02.2010 23:43, Aaron Griffin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Cedric Staniewski wrote: >> The location of the used utilities may and does differ between various >> distributions and therefore absolute paths do not work well. Since the >> main purpose of its introduction was to avoid

Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] bash_completion: remove absolute utility paths again

2010-02-25 Thread Cedric Staniewski
On 25.02.2010 23:44, Allan McRae wrote: > On 26/02/10 08:23, Cedric Staniewski wrote: >> The location of the used utilities may and does differ between various >> distributions and therefore absolute paths do not work well. Since the >> main purpose of its introduction was to avoid side-effects cau

Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] bash_completion: remove absolute utility paths again

2010-02-25 Thread Ray Rashif
On 26 February 2010 06:56, Cedric Staniewski wrote: > On 25.02.2010 23:43, Aaron Griffin wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Cedric Staniewski wrote: >>> The location of the used utilities may and does differ between various >>> distributions and therefore absolute paths do not work well.

Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] bash_completion: remove absolute utility paths again

2010-02-25 Thread Aaron Griffin
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Cedric Staniewski wrote: > On 25.02.2010 23:43, Aaron Griffin wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Cedric Staniewski wrote: >>> The location of the used utilities may and does differ between various >>> distributions and therefore absolute paths do not work

Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] bash_completion: remove absolute utility paths again

2010-02-25 Thread Ray Rashif
On 26 February 2010 07:03, Aaron Griffin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Cedric Staniewski wrote: >> On 25.02.2010 23:43, Aaron Griffin wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Cedric Staniewski wrote: The location of the used utilities may and does differ between various

Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] bash_completion: remove absolute utility paths again

2010-02-25 Thread Allan McRae
On 26/02/10 08:57, Cedric Staniewski wrote: On 25.02.2010 23:44, Allan McRae wrote: On 26/02/10 08:23, Cedric Staniewski wrote: The location of the used utilities may and does differ between various distributions and therefore absolute paths do not work well. Since the main purpose of its intro

Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] bash_completion: remove absolute utility paths again

2010-02-25 Thread Dan McGee
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Allan McRae wrote: > On 26/02/10 08:57, Cedric Staniewski wrote: >> >> On 25.02.2010 23:44, Allan McRae wrote: >>> >>> On 26/02/10 08:23, Cedric Staniewski wrote: The location of the used utilities may and does differ between various distributions an

Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] bash_completion: remove absolute utility paths again

2010-02-25 Thread Jim Pryor
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 09:56:05AM +1000, Allan McRae wrote: > On 26/02/10 08:57, Cedric Staniewski wrote: > >On 25.02.2010 23:44, Allan McRae wrote: > >>On 26/02/10 08:23, Cedric Staniewski wrote: > >>>The location of the used utilities may and does differ between various > >>>distributions and th

Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] makepkg: fall back to su if sudo is not available

2010-02-25 Thread Allan McRae
On 21/02/10 12:20, Ray Kohler wrote: There's a bit of a hack here with the "fullcmd" temporary variable to get around the need to pass the entire command line to su -c as one argument. Signed-off-by: Ray Kohler --- scripts/makepkg.sh.in | 19 +++ 1 files changed, 7 insertion

Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] bash_completion: remove absolute utility paths again

2010-02-25 Thread solsTiCe d'Hiver
> add a “\” (back-slash) before the command)... it is even working if \ is in the middle of the command name try: $ l\s $ alias printf='print hi\n"' and then try $ prin\tf from #b...@irc.freenode.net you can also use 'command' or "command" or l\s or ''ls

Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] bash_completion: remove absolute utility paths again

2010-02-25 Thread Ray Kohler
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Aaron Griffin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Cedric Staniewski wrote: >> On 25.02.2010 23:43, Aaron Griffin wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Cedric Staniewski wrote: The location of the used utilities may and does differ between various

Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] makepkg: fall back to su if sudo is not available

2010-02-25 Thread Ray Kohler
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Allan McRae wrote: > On 21/02/10 12:20, Ray Kohler wrote: >> >> There's a bit of a hack here with the "fullcmd" temporary >> variable to get around the need to pass the entire command line >> to su -c as one argument. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ray Kohler >> --- >>  scri

Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] makepkg: fall back to su if sudo is not available

2010-02-25 Thread Jim Pryor
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 09:05:11PM -0500, Ray Kohler wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Allan McRae wrote: > > > > does: > > su -c "$PACMAN $PACMAN_OPTS $@" > > not work? > > No, that somehow gets parsed as: > > su -c 'pacman -U' pkgname > > Which makes su complain that there's no such u

Re: [pacman-dev] [PATCH] makepkg: fall back to su if sudo is not available

2010-02-25 Thread Ray Kohler
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 9:52 PM, Jim Pryor wrote: > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 09:05:11PM -0500, Ray Kohler wrote: >> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Allan McRae wrote: >> > >> > does: >> > su -c "$PACMAN $PACMAN_OPTS $@" >> > not work? >> >> No, that somehow gets parsed as: >> >> su -c 'pacman -U'