> Le Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 09:06:15AM +, Martin Zobel-Helas a écrit :
> >
> > the following sentence in 2.5 leave much room for maneuver, therefor i
> > would like to see a clarification how it should be interpreted:
> >
> > | Important programs, including those which one would expect to find
Bill Allombert writes:
> You rightfull object that 'the expectation is that an experienced Unix
> person' is subjective in nature and leads to contradictory opinion.
> So maybe we should replace the phrase 'If the expectation is ...' by a
> reference to standard that define what UNIX is (POSIX,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 09:06:15AM +, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Severity: important
>
> Hi,
>
> the following sentence in 2.5 leave much room for maneuver, therefor i
> would like to see a clarification how it should be interpreted:
>
> | Important programs, includ
Hi,
On Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 21:36:11 +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Bill Allombert:
> > > > On the other hand, ed scripts are still in use:
> > > > - by diff
> > >
> > > Reasonable people have been using "diff -u" for the last umpteen years.
> >
> > Why so much drama ? I am sure you d
Hi,
Bill Allombert:
> > > On the other hand, ed scripts are still in use:
> > > - by diff
> >
> > Reasonable people have been using "diff -u" for the last umpteen years.
>
> Why so much drama ? I am sure you did not intend to call me unreasonnable, yet
> your post suggests it.
>
No, of course
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 05:55:11PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Bill Allombert:
> > On the other hand, ed scripts are still in use:
> > - by diff
>
> Reasonable people have been using "diff -u" for the last umpteen years.
Why so much drama ? I am sure you did not intend to call me un
On 2015-01-29 16:55, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
Hi,
Bill Allombert:
[...]
- by apt-get: the pdiff system use ed scripts
which I assume has a dependency on ed.
apt uses an internal implementation.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a su
On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 10:49:42AM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Martin Zobel-Helas:
> > the following sentence in 2.5 leave much room for maneuver, therefor i
> > would like to see a clarification how it should be interpreted:
> >
> > | Important programs, including those which one wo
Hi,
Bill Allombert:
> On the other hand, ed scripts are still in use:
> - by diff
Reasonable people have been using "diff -u" for the last umpteen years.
> - by apt-get: the pdiff system use ed scripts
>
which I assume has a dependency on ed.
> so it is useful to keep the reference to what thi
Le Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 09:06:15AM +, Martin Zobel-Helas a écrit :
>
> the following sentence in 2.5 leave much room for maneuver, therefor i
> would like to see a clarification how it should be interpreted:
>
> | Important programs, including those which one would expect to find on
> | any U
Hi,
Martin Zobel-Helas:
> the following sentence in 2.5 leave much room for maneuver, therefor i
> would like to see a clarification how it should be interpreted:
>
> | Important programs, including those which one would expect to find on
> | any Unix-like system. If the expectation is that an ex
Package: debian-policy
Severity: important
Hi,
the following sentence in 2.5 leave much room for maneuver, therefor i
would like to see a clarification how it should be interpreted:
| Important programs, including those which one would expect to find on
| any Unix-like system. If the expectation
12 matches
Mail list logo
