>>>Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> I suggest kindly pointing this out to those who start their scripts with
> #!/usr/local/bin/perl.
Even thou the rest of the world may be wrong it till exist, and one
sometimes has to make the best to interact even with an erratic world,
that is the main reason why soft
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 07:51:47AM +0200, Anders Arnholm wrote:
> You mean having to dive into almost every perl script (not Linux
> developed) and change #!/usr/local/bin/perl to #!/usr/bin/perl
It is unfortunate, but the popular usage (ie, #!/usr/local/bin/perl) is
wrong. /usr/bin/perl has alwa
On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 12:48:43PM -0700, Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > > Thursday, September 16, 1999, 10:50:57 AM, Raul wrote:
> > > > Um.. you're just not lazy enough...
> > > > # cd /usr/local/bin
> > > > # ln -s /usr/bin/perl
> >
> > On Thu, Sep
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Thursday, September 16, 1999, 10:50:57 AM, Raul wrote:
> > > Um.. you're just not lazy enough...
> > > # cd /usr/local/bin
> > > # ln -s /usr/bin/perl
>
> On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 11:42:21AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > ln -s `which perl` /usr/local/bin
> Thursday, September 16, 1999, 10:50:57 AM, Raul wrote:
> > Um.. you're just not lazy enough...
> > # cd /usr/local/bin
> > # ln -s /usr/bin/perl
On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 11:42:21AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> ln -s `which perl` /usr/local/bin/perl
You're confusing keystroke time with character c
Thursday, September 16, 1999, 10:50:57 AM, Raul wrote:
> Um.. you're just not lazy enough...
> # cd /usr/local/bin
> # ln -s /usr/bin/perl
ln -s `which perl` /usr/local/bin/perl
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 07:51:47AM +0200, Anders Arnholm wrote:
> You mean having to dive into almost every perl script (not Linux
> developed) and change #!/usr/local/bin/perl to #!/usr/bin/perl,
Um.. you're just not lazy enough...
# cd /usr/local/bin
# ln -s /usr/bin/perl
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 10:27:47 AM, Jonathan wrote:
> Source code is not variable. Once its downloaded and compiled, it just
> sits there. The whole point of a "ports" collection is that for a given
> package, you have the corresponding source to every binary. That does not
> change. It
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Steve Lamb wrote:
> See, this little subthread came from that where someone said
> /usr/packages, which was shortened to /usr/pac (IIRC), then /usr/pkg,
> whereupon I jumped right back in and pointed out /var/pkg and forgot the lib
> in /var/lib/dpkg.
Source code is not va
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 9:45:58 AM, Jonathan wrote:
> Steven, you have no clue what we were even talking about do you. Go away.
I know enough to quote properly. I know enough to know that where this
whole branch of the thread started was about stuffing a database of possible
"packages
Steven, you have no clue what we were even talking about do you. Go away.
Playing devils advocate is fine. You aren't even doing that right.
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 2:09:38 AM, Gerhard wrote:
> > /usr/pkg would be much better ;-)))
> /var/pkg e
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 2:09:38 AM, Gerhard wrote:
> /usr/pkg would be much better ;-)))
/var/pkg even more so. Oh, wait, that would be too close to /var/dpkg.
Which is what, exactly? I don't have such a directory on my system.
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 2:09:38 AM, Gerhard wrote:
> /usr/pkg would be much better ;-)))
/var/pkg even more so. Oh, wait, that would be too close to /var/dpkg.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connect
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 02:34:55PM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> > I'm not a debian developer yet (and seems like I won't even attempt till I
> > feel that new maintainers are welcome),
>
> If you've got a really useful package done up that you think wou
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 02:34:55PM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> I'm not a debian developer yet (and seems like I won't even attempt till I
> feel that new maintainers are welcome),
If you've got a really useful package done up that you think would add to
Debian, get someone to sponsor you.
If you
On 15-Sep-99, 03:05 (CDT), Daniel Quinlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the length of the PATH is a serious problem, we could potentially
> to make /opt/bin front-ends a requirement. However, you then have
> to solve (or at least ignore) the problem of potential namespace
> conflicts. Add-on app
Hi,
I'm not a debian developer yet (and seems like I won't even attempt till I
feel that new maintainers are welcome), but I just wanted to comment on
how a re-organization might be done.
First of all, I'd like to state that dpkg system is all very well thought.
Speaking of modularity, package m
>>>Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:00:02PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > As another sometimes Solaris and HP user, hear hear. If the only way
>
> What, you don't like this?
>
> /ato/extern/gnu/bin:/usr/hp64000/bin:/usr/broadband/bin:/usr/broadband/util:
>
> :-) Fro
Hi,
> For those who hate typing, I would recommend /usr/packages -> /usr/pak
/usr/pkg would be much better ;-)))
cu
gerhard
--
"We all know Linux is great...it does infinite loops in 5 seconds."
(Linus Torvalds about the superiority of Linux on the Amsterdam
Linux Symposium)
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I dunno about you, but that is the very definition of "spread out"
>> especially when you consider that {package} in /opt can be quite a
>> few. I'm disgusted with my path on my Solaris box at work. I
>> needed to add /opt/gnu/gimp/bin, /opt/gnu/gcc/bin
20 matches
Mail list logo
