* Ben Collins said:
Hmmm...looking at the source, it wont accept a line with less than 4
arguments,
yet you are correct that the documentation say otherwise. Let me work on
this.
I'll have it fixed in the next upload.
I have attached a quick (and untested - I didn't have time
* Philip Hands said:
Wait a second.
So this mc script is an attempt to leave you in the directory you were
in when you left mc ?
[snip]
/etc
/tmp
the ``cd /etc'' only applies in the shell executed in the brackets.
The same goes for the mc script. Any effect of the cd in the script
* Piotr Roszatycki said:
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Marek Habersack wrote:
mc() {
if [ -x /usr/bin/mc ]; then
MC=$(/bin/mktemp /tmp/mc.XX)
/usr/bin/mc -P $@ $MC $MC
cd $(cat $MC)
rm -f $MC
fi
}
I think the more simple is:
mc=()
{
cd $(/usr/bin/mc
* Steve Lamb said:
Why is placing third-party bianary packages in /opt a bad thing?
Because /opt is a duplication of an existing file structure which can
serve the purpose more than adequately. What people are asking me is what is
wrong with /opt when I am pointing out is that there
* Branden Robinson said:
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 05:59:33PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 5:40:28 PM, Raul wrote:
As it happens, I already pointed you at the answer to that question,
you were just too lazy to take the hint. So [me being a fool], here's
a quote
* Steve Lamb said:
Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 2:39:46 PM, Jonathan wrote:
Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:14:37 PM, Federico wrote:
IMHO, /usr is what we (Debian) control, /usr/local is what I (the
sysadmin) control, /opt is where third-party package builders (e.g.,
Corel, KDE,
* Steve Lamb said:
Again, please do not reply above. It is rude.
No, it might be inconvenient for YOU, but it's not rude. You are rude, all
the time.
Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:34:05 PM, Jonathan wrote:
On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Steve Lamb wrote:
Then why /home/ftp instead of /ftp?
* Steve Lamb said:
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 01:49:41PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
So why /opt and not /usr/opt with the possibility of /usr/local/opt?
Because unlike opt and local, there really isn't a difference between
/opt and /usr/opt -- except that one's a standard. Why not
* Steve Lamb said:
Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:53:40 PM, Raul wrote:
Actually, the biggest problem with Windows is that it's not a standard.
But it is.
Oh? Show me an RFC or anything of the kind that makes WIndows standard? The
fact that it is installed on almost every OEM equipment
* Steve Lamb said:
Considering one can install a fairly robust system (FreeBSD, Debian) over
FTP/NFS in under an hour and it takes 2-3 to go through a gig of data I would
much rather reinstall the programs and retrieve the relatively small data
(/etc, btw, is data).
I can't believe what
* Sven LUTHER said:
How do you know I don't do just that, via symlinks? I bet you'd never
have
guessed I have /usr/src/linux symlinked to /sys
OK, now argue it as a standard for everyone as /opt is.
/opt is a de-facto standard. By usage. By tradition. By habit. By
* Steve Lamb said:
None of this describes one bit why it has to be a top level
directory.
Because it fits the Unix tradition of lazy typists. Im a lazy typist.
Hear my carpal tunnel fingers cry out as they type the extra 4
characters in /usr/opt
Then why
Hi,
After the today's upgrade of the login and passwd with PAM support I have
found one problem. It seems that there's something wrong with the pam_limits
module. After enabling it for login I get the 'Module unknown' message and
the syslog records what follows:
Sep 15 16:41:38 jester
* Ben Collins said:
Sep 15 16:41:38 jester login[30897]: PAM unable to resolve symbol:
pam_sm_open_session
Sep 15 16:41:38 jester login[30897]: PAM unable to resolve symbol:
pam_sm_close_session
Any cure for that?
Update to the latest PAM 0.69-6 in incoming. Some one else also
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
ideas (whether they worth anything or nothing at all). I seems that I am
simply not capable of taking part in public discussions or I lack fluency in
English to express myself in a clear way.
Someone on IRC told me that there can't be a calm discussion about
* Ossama Othman said:
Why? Tell me how I pass a C++ object to C, Fortran or Pascal.
The same way you pass fortran to C: use wrappers, for example. Here is
one way of passing a static C++ method to a C function (e.g. signal
system call) in C++ code:
extern C void
Base_cleanup (void
* Ossama Othman said:
Simple. :-)
Perhaps, but not clean. And doesn't make sense in this particular case...
Remember the rule of the Ockham's Razor I think it should be obeyed
here...
What's not clean about it? It's a very simple wrapper? Also, what
doesn't make sense? It
* Ossama Othman said:
Hi, Ossama
implementation on the GNU platform, which is now in its young days - it's
constantly changing, the features are being added, standard being
implemented in more and more detail. This situation will no doubt incurr
many changes both in the source code
* Brent Fulgham said:
Simple. :-)
Perhaps, but not clean. And doesn't make sense in this
particular case...
Remember the rule of the Ockham's Razor I think it should
be obeyed
here...
I think the real problem is in trying to export a language-specific
construct to
* Aaron Van Couwenberghe said:
Yes, I see everyone's points. I know what you're saying. I'll keep it in
mind; you've made your arguments. I just would like to see an end to this
fledgling flamefest ;P
Well, I saw no flames... Just a discussion but, hey, who am I to judge...?
marek
* Ossama Othman said:
mean, you can buy a small car - a shopping bag on wheels and then buy a
new engine just to be able to tow a trailer :)) - it is possible, but not
cost-effective and sensible - you can buy a larger and stronger car at once
:)). Maybe the example isn't perfect, but
* Sven LUTHER said:
Polymorphism is such an obvious pillar of structured programming that I
can't understand how anybody could live without it.
Is it? AFAICS none of the traditional languages like Pascal or C has
polimorphism at its base...
What you call polymorphism is just function
* Sven LUTHER said:
Agreed. Too bad C++ does not support parametric polymorphism too well.
Templates come close, so the hope is not lost.
But the problem is that templates, nor exceptions or rtti (which are all
elements of MODERN C++ programming) don't work well enough on the GNU
* Sven LUTHER said:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 12:44:02AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
1. you create a C library with all the dpkg functionality inside
2. you compile and link it as a shared library
3. you write several simple drivers to interface the user to that library
4. the .so
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho said:
Is that true, I have heard this agrument often, but is it true, and is it
still
so today ? Is there effort made to fix this ? how far are they ?
I haven't used RTTI, but in my experience templates work without problems
and exceptions work most of the time
* Sven LUTHER said:
Is that true, I have heard this agrument often, but is it true, and is it
still
so today ? Is there effort made to fix this ? how far are they ?
I haven't used RTTI, but in my experience templates work without problems
I also heard that templates bloat the
* Hamish Moffatt said:
mention templates. And I remember how did the C++ interface, in binary
This was certainly true in g++ 2.7.x, but egcs seems much better.
Much better, yes, but it's still not finished.
(Exceptions and templates anyway; I don't know what rtti is.)
RTTI stands for
* Aaron Van Couwenberghe said:
The answer is - you can't... All the languages you mentioned have clean C
interacing methods, but no C++ ones. The reason is that C++ is not
interoperable.
No, no, no! one word for everyone. CORBA!
I'm sorry to say that, but dream on...
marek
* Brandon Mitchell said:
Hi Aaron,
I would be interested in seeing your design. It may clear up some
concerns as to why you are picking your language (which seems to have
I would like to see it as well. So far, not even a single argument has been
presented to justify the selection of C++ -
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
This mail is ignoring Aaron's request for peace over this topic, but I am
I just can't resist writing it: there was NO war on this subject, so why do
you and Aaron want to make peace?
become the new standard, then the language you decide to use is very
important.
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
[...]
but it should have not. Please ignore my last mail on this topic. I just
noticed that the general discussions was vastly ahead of your contribution.
Too late :))) I just responded :)
marek
pgpHQENkp6Wkz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 01:03:46AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
3. Most programmers would write code in C
Yeah, uh. But that's the point isn't it?
No, that's the reality.
The current dpkg is written in C. How many programmers are working on it?
Again, that's
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 12:47:59AM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
But the problem is that templates, nor exceptions or rtti (which are all
elements of MODERN C++ programming) don't work well enough on the GNU
platform...
It would be silly to try to use all
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
Again, that's not an argument. People come and people go, and more of them
know C than C++. Besides, ech..., how can you draw an argument like this???
I can because I see what's happening to dpkg and it worries me.
We all are blinded by dpkg. It works, yes. How
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 08:50:26PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
And note that development will just start. By the time this project
enters a
critical stage, egcs will be improved again.
No, the development shouldn't start yet. A project should be presented
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. But the decisions are made by
people who to do the work.
Not in this case. This is not their graduate project, nor an experiment.
It's a package which the entire Debian distribution relies on
You're wrong, reread
* Marcus Brinkmann said:
dpkg is already far too slow on old hardware...hell, it's too slow on
a P200 with 200MB of RAM, now that the status and available files have
over 3300 packages detailed in them.
Yeah, it's slow, and it's written in C.
Linux is slow. It's written in C. Yeah...
* Branden Robinson said:
several lines? If so, then please go back AND READ IT. Only then you have a
right to jump upon me like that. Before you joined the discussion, we were
DISCUSSING matters, now we're FIGHTING and flaming each other. Thank you.
What is there to discuss with you?
Hi all,
Well, I wan't to apologize to all who feel offended with my views and
ideas (whether they worth anything or nothing at all). I seems that I am
simply not capable of taking part in public discussions or I lack fluency in
English to express myself in a clear way.
Either way, I just
* Aaron Van Couwenberghe said:
Notably, I'm going to be writing it in C++. This will add about 270k
to the boot disks' root image, but as the floppy install methods are for the
most part phasing out under the shadow of easier methods, I'm not going to
Are you sure about that? If yes, the
* Ossama Othman said:
One alternative that's probably worth considering is improving libdpkg, so
that Apt and friends can make use of dpkg that way, and provide their own
front ends however they see fit.
I don't think that is a complete solution. Improving libdpkg would
be good but,
* Ossama Othman said:
be good but, as Aaron described, that would just be adding/modifying
code to code that is already brittle.
Well, a complete rewrite and redesign in C would help...
Yep, I agree. Although, I still like Aaron's idea.
Yes, it is nice as a venture, IMHO, but at
* Kenneth Scharf said:
(I've been playing around with gtk++ and VDK for a while now) before I
would even consider it. I currently write stuff for an NT platform
under C++ using the Rational Rose OO modeling tool, so I agree with
your idea of using C++ for this work. GOOD LUCK!
NT (and M$
* Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho said:
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 03:01:12PM -0700, Aaron Van Couwenberghe wrote:
Polymorphism is such an obvious pillar of structured programming that I
can't understand how anybody could live without it.
Agreed. Too bad C++ does not support parametric polymorphism
301 - 344 of 344 matches
Mail list logo
