On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:03:56AM +0200, Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler wrote:
Saved to branden.asc and 'gpg -d branden.asc' results in
gpg: CRC error; 72a653 - dc372a
gpg: quoted printable character in armor - probably a buggy MTA has been used
This concerns me a lot more than the joke itself or
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 03:34:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
gpg: CRC error; 72a653 - dc372a
gpg: quoted printable character in armor - probably a buggy MTA has been
used
This concerns me a lot more than the joke itself or what led up to it.
Does anyone else have this problem
On 2906T033439-0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:03:56AM +0200, Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler wrote:
Saved to branden.asc and 'gpg -d branden.asc' results in
gpg: CRC error; 72a653 - dc372a
gpg: quoted printable character in armor - probably a buggy MTA has been
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Michael Beattie wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 01:19:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:54:25AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Um, why send such a message to a widely-read mailing-list?
As a joke...
Im damned curious.. what did
On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 10:03:56AM +0200, Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler wrote:
Saved to branden.asc and 'gpg -d branden.asc' results in
gpg: CRC error; 72a653 - dc372a
gpg: quoted printable character in armor - probably a buggy MTA has been used
Well, I was able to repair and read it. Even if I
On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, Michael Beattie wrote:
It was meant as a joke... so go ahead :)
That's why I did not really complain about it ;-)
Im not sure why he encrypted to you though.
Yeah, I also thought that you should have received this ;-))
(because you asked for it, that is)
Ulf
On 2903T152152-0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
-BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-
...
-END PGP MESSAGE-
gpg: encrypted with 1024-bit ELG-E key, ID 22CC9EBE, created 2000-08-17
Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gpg: no secret key for decryption available
gpg: decryption failed:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:54:25AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Um, why send such a message to a widely-read mailing-list?
As a joke...
--
G. Branden Robinson | Psychology is really biology.
Debian GNU/Linux| Biology is really chemistry.
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 01:19:08AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 08:54:25AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
Um, why send such a message to a widely-read mailing-list?
As a joke...
Im damned curious.. what did it say?
--
Michael Beattie
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler wrote:
P.S.: Please can you go without the PGP stuff for the mailing list? It
seems to double the size of your messages. Thanks.
I'd like to see Overfiends response to this.
--
Michael Beattie
On Sun, Sep 03, 2000 at 07:55:32PM +1200, Michael Beattie wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 03:12:30PM +0200, Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler wrote:
P.S.: Please can you go without the PGP stuff for the mailing list? It
seems to double the size of your messages. Thanks.
I'd like to see Overfiends
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Herbert == Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Herbert And this is Debian where we have a policy that says #!/bin/sh
scripts
Herbert need to be POSIX compliant.
What policy says is:
We were talking about echo -ne, not echo -n which ash
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29-Aug-2000 Miros/law `Jubal' Baran wrote:
Isn't /bin/ash POSIX compliant?
I run ash as my /bin/sh. As for its compliance, I am not certain and no one
will claim it being fullly compliant.
AFAIK ash is as complaint as bash (in
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 29-Aug-2000 Miros/law `Jubal' Baran wrote:
Isn't /bin/ash POSIX compliant?
I run ash as my /bin/sh. As for its compliance, I am not certain and no
one
will claim it being fullly compliant.
AFAIK ash is as
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 10:10:04AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
It parses command line -en different from bash. Different getopts ;-)
How does it differ? AFAIK, ash's getopts is POSIX compliant.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmVHI~} [EMAIL
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 10:10:04AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
It parses command line -en different from bash. Different getopts ;-)
How does it differ? AFAIK, ash's getopts is POSIX compliant.
Sorry, wrote my first message with too high blood level in the caffeine
subsystem. I
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 11:57:17AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
Sorry, wrote my first message with too high blood level in the caffeine
subsystem. I meant echo -ne.
Neither SuS nor POSIX specifies -e so ash is free to do whatever it chooses.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 2.2 is out! (
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 11:57:17AM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
Sorry, wrote my first message with too high blood level in the caffeine
subsystem. I meant echo -ne.
Neither SuS nor POSIX specifies -e so ash is free to do whatever it chooses.
If you noted I have not used the
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 12:31:15PM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
Neither SuS nor POSIX specifies -e so ash is free to do whatever it chooses.
If you noted I have not used the word POSIX anywhere. I just said that
there
are tons things that will break.
And this is Debian where we
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 12:31:15PM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote:
Neither SuS nor POSIX specifies -e so ash is free to do whatever it
chooses.
If you noted I have not used the word POSIX anywhere. I just said that
there
are tons things that will break.
And this is Debian
Anton Ivanov wrote:
If you are right at least apache scripts are not. I suggest you
file a bug against it.
If you know how to call apache scripts to demonstrate the error then
please file the bug yourself.
Check before, if you run an up-to-date apache.
apache starts up correctly
Anton Ivanov wrote:
If you are right at least apache scripts are not. I suggest you
file a bug against it.
If you know how to call apache scripts to demonstrate the error then
please file the bug yourself.
Check before, if you run an up-to-date apache.
I do
apache
Anton Ivanov wrote:
apache starts up correctly for me on every system boot, and I do have
/bin/sh pointing to /bin/ash as well.
My fault. It actually uses #!/bin/bash which it should not anyway
Well, #!/bin/bash scripts are allowed to use bashisms :)
Ulf
Herbert == Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Herbert And this is Debian where we have a policy that says #!/bin/sh scripts
Herbert need to be POSIX compliant.
What policy says is:
The standard shell interpreter ``/bin/sh'' can be a symbolic link to
any POSIX compatible
You cannot use it as a default shell without auditing all scripts.
I have used ash for over a year now as my /bin/sh.
You cannot use it as a default shell without auditing all scripts.
I have used ash for over a year now as my /bin/sh.
OK, OK, OK, I surrender.
I have to admit my experience was rather old
and the quantity of bashisms have sharply decreased. So you can run
another
26 matches
Mail list logo
