I don't object to a suitable Debian developer who wants to take over
maintenance of lilypond. They should contact me directly.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Mon, 2008-12-29 at 15:02 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> For example, having "non-free" in the archive and the BTS (and potentially
> buildds and elsewhere) is implied by point (3) (ie, supporting Debian
> users who choose to use non-free software to the best of our ability),
> and potentially usi
On Sun, 2008-12-28 at 20:45 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 12:48:24AM +, Simon Huggins wrote:
> >
> > I wonder how many DDs were ashamed to vote the titled "Reaffirm the
> > social contract" lower than the choices that chose to release.
> >
>
> I'm not ashamed at all; I
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 06:55 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> Because according to you, Debian isn't allowed to ship any non-free
> bits, right?
No, not right. Please pay attention.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROT
On Sun, 2008-11-09 at 00:39 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > And none of this is really relevent: the DFSG and the Social Contract do
> > not contain an exception for dishonest or scared hardware manufacturers,
> > or stupid FCC policies.
>
> Neither does it (currently) contain an exception for debi
On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 18:55 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
>
> The FCC understands that you can't make it *impossible*. Even before
> software radios, it was understood that someone posessing the skills,
> say, of an amateur radio operator might be able to add a resistor or
> capacitor in parallel wi
On Sat, 2008-11-08 at 14:11 -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> There are corporate lawyers who are very much afraid that the FCC
> could, if they were alerted to the fact that someone had figured out
> how to reverse engineer the HAL and/or the firmware to cause their
> WiFi unit to become a "super radio
On Wed, 2008-11-05 at 18:06 +, David Given wrote:
> So having the source doesn't actually gain you anything --- you would
> neither be able nor allowed to do anything with it, apart from printing
> it on T-shirts.
You can learn about it. Remember the educational purpose of free
software?
Tho
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 16:33 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> So if any of the hardware that requires non-free firmware to operate and
> currently works in etch was to not work with Lenny, then that's
> completely unacceptable?
>
> If that's the case, then there is no way EVER to make Debian comply
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 13:23 -0400, Michael Casadevall wrote:
> I have some experience with radios. The FCC requires all radios to be
> certified before they can be sold, and there is a requirement that you
> must not make a device that is easily modifiable to operate outside
> the limits put forth
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 17:34 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> So now as a Manufacturer I have the choice between
>
> 1) Use a huge NV/FLASH/EEPROM Memory which make the Hardware maybe
> 10-20 Euro more expensive and I will lost customers.
>
> 2) Use huge external SRAM (makes the Hardware exp
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 01:48 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:52 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > But regardless, Debian has promised that Debian is only free software.
>
> Then why does Debian have non-free? Is that not part of Debian?
No, it'
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 22:53 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> What does have the FIRMWARE to do with a DEVICE DRIVER?
For the DEVICE DRIVER to work, a FIRMWARE must be loaded on some
hardware, as you well know.
Debian has promised that the Debian distribution will only be free
software. Some of t
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 21:47 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> There are SDKs called "Builder" where you will have NEVER source code,
> even as Developer, since the "Builder" create an IMAGE which will be
> uploaded into the the SRAM of a Microcontroller (I have some 8051
> compatibles)
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 22:08 +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
>
> The FSF seems to disagree on this[1]:
>
> Can I release a non-free program that's designed to load a GPL-covered
> plug-in?
>
> It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. For instance, if
> the program uses o
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 21:13 +0200, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-10-22 at 11:38 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> >> The iwl4965 firmware changed 2 times incompatible since the driver
> >> exists.
> >
> > That makes me wonder just how separate the driver and firmware a
On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 18:13 +0100, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Perhaps I'm mis-reading the above. Which bit of the foundation documents
> do you think would need overriding for the tech-ctte to rule on which
> fix to take?
One might think that this is the situation: two alternative fixes for
the DFSG p
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 18:45 -0500, Ean Schuessler wrote:
> I guess the question is, staying in the arena of "100% Free", what if
> DRM technologies become pervasive in the United States and Europe and
> it literally becomes illegal to have a computer without some
> proprietary software in it? What
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 17:06 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> I worded that rather badly. You should imply "within acceptable terms of
> the DFSG" here... in this case, putting stuff in the nonfree firmware
> package in non-free is an acceptable solution.
Of course; that's an excellent solution. Ri
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:27 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:20 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> > > Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
> > > exhau
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:23 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 October 2008, you wrote:
> > But, in fact, fixes are not welcome from the team. They have raised a
> > major roadblock, allowing only one kind of fix which requires a lot of
> > work, and rejecting anything simpler.
>
> Ever hear
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 23:28 +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Would it be a good compromise between SCs #1, #3 and #4 if we made an
> exhaustive list of non-free bits in main, and make it our goal that the
> list gets smaller between each release and not to add anything to
> that list?
I would be enti
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 16:00 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> Unfortunately, those who contribute to Debian must be dedicated to
> ensuring future releases of Debian support the latest available hardware
> at time of release.
No matter what our principles are? Wow. Why are we not equally
committe
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 22:47 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 October 2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I see. So the previous statement that "nobody is standing in the way"
> > of a fix is simply not so. People certainly are standing in the way.
>
> That
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 14:59 -0500, William Pitcock wrote:
> If we waited for a release to be 100% perfect, it will likely take
> several more years. The good news is that the amount of inline firmware
> in the kernel is decreasing. So, eventually, all non-DFSG
> redistributable firmware can belong
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 21:21 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I am *happy* to code an acceptable solution, but I regard "not support
> > the hardware for installation" as acceptable.
>
> I'm very glad that history has shown most develo
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 20:24 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:52:28PM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > This is the part I am not comfortable with. I do not think the
> > delegates have the powers to decide when enough progress has been made
> > to violate a foun
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 15:22 +, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Thomas: your continued inaction and unwillingness to code an acceptable
> solution to this issue, in spite of being aware of the problem since
> at least 2004 -- over four years ago! -- means we will continue to do
> releases with non-free s
On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 08:29 +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:49:40 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> >> No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do thin
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 22:26 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> No, really. The kernel team are volunteers. Ordering them to do things
> doesn't help at all; one could equally well send the same message to
> everyone working on Debian (or, indeed, the wider community) since they
> could also step up to th
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 20:18 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> Apparently, our control structures are not reliable enough to _enforce_
> what we have decided. It seems we relied primarily on the release team,
> which has betrayed the goals of the project, and only count on the FTP
> team as a fallback,
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 19:11 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 10:55:00AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > I object to a second round of this. I was ok with it once, as a
> > compromise, but the understanding I had then was that it was a one-time
> >
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:43 -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Actually, I think we need a GR on the lines of
> ,
> | http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_007
> | General Resolution: Handling source-less firmware in the Linux kernel
> `
>
> To get a special dispensation for
On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 16:08 +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 08:41:16AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >
> > Has the current release team lowered the bar on Debian actually
> > trying to follow the social contract?
>
> Yes, they have.
>
> Furthermore, the FTP team
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 07:59 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Also, is it really interesting to the average DD where this queue is?
> People should be able to upload and expect their packages to end up in
> the archive. It really *absolutely* does not matter if that upload goes
> straight to ftp-master
On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 21:51 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 04:59:58PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Please always only use the symbolic names for the places to upload to
> > (ie ftp.upload.debian.org and ssh.upload.debian.org), do not use any
> > machine name directly. Que
On Sun, 2008-09-28 at 21:51 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2008 at 04:59:58PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > Please always only use the symbolic names for the places to upload to
> > (ie ftp.upload.debian.org and ssh.upload.debian.org), do not use any
> > machine name directly. Que
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 11:20 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 11/02/2008, Mike Bird wrote:
> > Debian should ensure that millions of Debian users around the world
> > who have written and tested millions of tiny shell scripts with no
> > thought to the possibility that /bin/sh may one day become
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 01:54 -0600, William Pitcock wrote:
> It's possible for programs to completely change between versions. There
> really is no difference in reality between switching from program A to
> program B and switching from program A 1.1 to 1.2. The risk of problems
> is exactly the sa
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 20:39 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> So we should also never upgrade /usr/bin/python, /usr/bin/perl, or
> /usr/bin/gcc to point at a new upstream version because users may have local
> programs that assume particular non-standard behavior from these programs,
> right?
I thin
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 19:36 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Raphael Geissert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I just replied to Thomas on the bug report including some information
> > that demonstrates that his arguments on dash not implementing some (at
> > least the one mentioned on the report) /
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 21:10 -0600, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:12 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> >
> >> This applies to everything from tarballs of packages which are not yet
> >> in Debian to the dozens of tiny custom scripts that everyone has for
> >> backups or nagios exten
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:12 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Sun February 10 2008 15:54:36 Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Or to follow Colin's suggestion from the policy discussion a few years
> > ago, and grant a special exception, carefully crafted, for particular
> >
On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 01:54 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Well, policy describes usage, and usage (I think) is to assume that
> /bin/sh gives you a decently recent POSIX environment (I said POSIX not
> GNU) and that if you rely on GNU extensions of tools (like echo -e) you
> should call those
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 22:11 +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 02:34:37PM -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 10:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>
> >>
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 11:26 -0800, Mike Bird wrote:
> On Sun February 10 2008 10:16:44 Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Shells can override commands, but only if they don't play games with the
> > syntax.
>
> Agreed. Within the Debian world, dash has redefined test rath
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 20:34 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 07:17:58PM +0000, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >
> > Or are you saying that it's ok for dash to override random Debian
> > commands in incompatible ways?
>
> Well, let's dr
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 10:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
> >
> > The problem is that it overrides the system's "test" command (in
> > Debian,
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 10:57 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
> >
> > The problem is that it overrides the system's "test" command (in
> > Debian,
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 19:58 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 06:16:44PM +0000, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
> >
> > [ strip whining ]
>
> > Alas, dash does change the syntax of the command
Dash has a serious bug which is causing grief.
The problem is that it overrides the system's "test" command (in
Debian, /usr/bin/test and /usr/bin/[) and does so in a way which is
inconsistent with the Debian versions.
Nothing in Posix permits this behavior, but it is tolerated by the
standard *p
On Wed, 2008-01-30 at 00:21 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > For my money, you blew it. You don't bootstrap a discussion by
> > presenting a pseudo-official email like the one you posted. But we can
> > get back to that discussion:
On Tue, 2008-01-29 at 23:31 +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> There are certainly performance trade-offs involved and the final
> selection of features will depend on the testing of the respective
> maintainers (testing should be eased by hardening-wrapper).
What bothers
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 19:56 +0100, Luk Claes wrote:
> We can surely keep all old cruft in the archive and never release again
> (or not with these packages anyway), though I don't think that is
> preferred from a quality assurance, security nor release point of view...
Of course, this isn't what
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 17:02 +, Neil McGovern wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 11:35:54AM -0500, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > So please, let these maintainers choose, rather than ordering them
> > about. It is *they* who are in a position to decide whether maintaining
> &g
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 13:39 +0100, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> "cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "As long as there's interest the software will stay alive" is one of the
> > main tenets of Free Software. Consequently, IMHO, as long as there's people
> > willing to
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 17:56 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > So please, let these maintainers choose, rather than ordering them
> > about. It is *they* who are in a position to decide whether maintaining
> > gnome 1.x is worth it. Of course, it will also be up to them to do the
> > maintenance.
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 10:34 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2008 at 01:10:26AM +0000, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Don't start filing remove requests until other maintainers have a
> > chance. Take the step of contacting those who maintain packages th
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 02:20 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> (Dropping -release, which is not a discussion list, and Pierre, who is
> obviously subscribed to both.)
>
> On 15/01/2008, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > This is not the right process for something like this. Instead,
On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 00:07 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Then I'll do some more runs of the same principle on other gnome 1.x
> related libs until we got rid of them al.
>
> If you know your package depends on gnome 1.x one way or the other, now
> is the time to fix that, package a new upstrea
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 19:53 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi debian-kernel ;)
>
> for those of you who dont read debian-devel... :-)
>
> On Wednesday 04 July 2007 18:14, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I'm trying to find out who has responsibility for Bug #430646.
>
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 18:18 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2007 at 09:14:24 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to find out who has responsibility for Bug #430646. It's a
> > critical bug, which should normally get some attention, and
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 18:35 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 July 2007 18:30, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > I doubt that that BR deserves an RC severity to be honest.
> >
> > Really? The package *has no module*. It is a package which exists
> > *only to
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 18:26 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 July 2007 18:14, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > I'm trying to find out who has responsibility for Bug #430646. It's a
> > critical bug, which should normally get some attention, and mail to
> > de
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 18:05 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 July 2007 17:58, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Who are the actual kernel maintainers? debian-kernel is listed, but
> > that's surely not right, since anyone can join that list. I assume
> > that
Who are the actual kernel maintainers? debian-kernel is listed, but
that's surely not right, since anyone can join that list. I assume that
not just anyone who joins debian-kernel is therefore a maintainer of
Debian kernel packages.
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 02:45 +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> What I was trying to show is that the relevance of a copyright case
> brought against you in a jurisdiction outside of your immediate concern
> is zero, for all practical matters; that means you can simply ignore it,
> and nothing Bad will
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 12:49 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sun, 3 Jun 2007, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
>
> > ...
> > This is only my (ill-informed) opinion - I am neither a German, nor a
> > German lawyer :)
>
> I'm not really picky about names and would be quite relaxed if the official
> homepag
On Tue, 2007-04-24 at 17:39 +, J HU wrote:
> Dear experts,
>
> I'm working with sockets in a debian with a version of kernel 2.6.x, and I'd
> like to disable the fragmentation of the ipv4 introduce.
> I have read that there was the option of modified the file
> /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_always_d
One of the unfortunate side-effects of a freeze is that it becomes very
hard to get necessary changes into etch when an upstream package is a
more rapidly moving target.
In the four months since gnucash 2.0.2 was released, much development
has happened, and upstream has released several more versi
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 10:37 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2007, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Unless I'm confused, this is what makefiles are for. How much trouble
> > is it to set it up, which must only be done once?
>
> Why convert it at build time?
On Wed, 2007-01-17 at 09:22 +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2007, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > am I wrong or one can have foo.png in foo.desktop, and foo.xpm in
> > foo.menu? If upstream does not provide an xpm icon, the "convert"
> > command of the imagemagick package can easily create on
On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 02:22 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > > To conclude, the support of multiple python versions is not meant at
> > > all a
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> An explicitely stated goal of the release team was to reduce the
> number of supported python versions for the next stable release. We
> did include three python versions for sarge (2.[123]). To reduce that
> count we do have to drop 2.3 (
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 00:38 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> To conclude, the support of multiple python versions is not meant at
> all as an excuse for lazy debian maintainers depending on python for
> not following upstream python development.
Are you calling me lazy for not fixing a bug that you
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 21:33 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > As I said, it is perfectly possible for a maintainer to write a script
> > which works on any shell and allows the user to pick at installation
> > time (heck, or even per-user!) which shell to use.
>
> How cool that would be to be asked 10
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 11:31 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Thomas Bushnell]
> > I'm interested in why we should care at all. Perl is a far bigger space
> > hog than bash.
>
> Debian Edu had to switch /bin/sh from bash to dash to get shutdown to
> umount /usr/ when we use libnss-ldap (bug #1
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 09:51 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 23:55 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > > > Instead of focusing and hammering again and again on /bin/sh, why not
> > > >
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 18:55 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:21:43PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > If we can support low end systems with *minimal* effort, fine, but you
> > are asking lots of *extra* effort.
>
> I think the two of you are spe
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 16:28 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > > but it is Debian's job to be responsive to its users needs and
> > > Debian has made a choice to strive for susv3 compatibility
> >
> > I don't think you understand what "compatibility" means in this
> > context. It does not mean that you c
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 15:12 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> Sure, but since all "sh" scripts would be better off if they specified
> dash as their command interpreter... #!/bin/sh use would disappear.
So?
> > I don't think it's my job to start saying what *other* distributions,
> > which are not Debi
> I'm not sure I follow. I' puzzled why you do not seem benefit in:
>
> - Making scripts sh-agnostict. That is making them portable
> - Supporting low end systems with minimal of effort
> - Improving the overall awaress of shells
I don't care about the "awareness" of shells, no.
If we can suppo
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 23:57 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> And why do you think that? please take a look at the RES values.
I know you don't understand it, because you just appealed to the RSS
values.
If many processes are sharing text, they all get accounted with the size
of the resident text in the
On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 00:02 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> "fast enought" is in the eye of a beholder. Try with PII/64M with
> X deskop with 20 sessions of bash open. And opening firefox and xchat.
What on earth is this nonsense about multiple invocations? Do you not
understand what shared text is?
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 23:55 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > Instead of focusing and hammering again and again on /bin/sh, why not
> > instead ask maintainers to do #!/bin/dash?
>
> Because the correct is #!/bin/sh and not to be tied on particular shell.
I can't tell what you mean. There is nothing
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 14:03 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Fri November 24 2006 13:15, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Instead of focusing and hammering again and again on /bin/sh, why not
> > instead ask maintainers to do #!/bin/dash?
>
> because bash offers a larger superse
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 21:08 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> You can use whatever bashisms you like when you're working
> interactively, that won't hinder dash from executing shells on boot and
> elsewhere. Using bashisms in scripts does however cause a problem.
I think it's time to realize that "
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 22:54 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:09:49PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> >
> > Now the choice of 464kB or 4528kB on a desktop where you're actually
> > using the shell for interactive things is
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 22:56 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> > > I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
> > > scripts.
> &g
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:46 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> Well, let's hope people don't use any of the non-SuSv3 features of cat
> in their shell scripts...
Why? Who cares?
This is some huge amount of work for some very little benefit.
Thomas
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitall
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 20:07 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 07:49:10PM +0100, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > There's a difference between requiring maintainer scripts to say
> > /bin/bash if they need bash constructs and rewriting existing scripts
> > to wor
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:50 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> I'm not suggesting to remove features from essential, but I think the
> policy should take the shells as special case, because the
> sh-compliances (SusV/POSIX) itself is a matter of its own. There are
> no viable alternative implementation of
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 19:33 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> I don't see perl used that much for maintainer scripts, or daemon
> scripts.
Exactly the *point*. So why isn't this your target?
> Some prefer bash and see no problems. Others consider bash's memory
> consumption a problem when compared to o
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 13:43 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
>
> Bash is not essential for running Debian. It is possible to run old
> PCs and old laptops completely free of bash. The point here is not the
> disk consumption, but the reduced memory constrainsts. When scripts
> are written with only "sh" i
On Thu, 2006-11-23 at 01:15 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
>
> I would drop that "special" case and always require explicit
> requirement for the shell. It's more clear to see which packages
> "need" bash to make them work. someone may then provide a patch to
> "make bash go away". I suggest removing th
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 15:47 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > Posix puts grep, ls, kill, test, and echo all in *exactly the same
> > category*. So why does posh treat them so differently?
>
> In the case of ls, because the author "cannot think of a legitimate
> reason for anyone to use ls in a shell
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 14:53 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> On Sun November 19 2006 14:03, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 18:43 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > > On
On Sun, 2006-11-19 at 18:43 +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 18, 2006 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 11:30 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > > > Well, the goal was (in part) to catch scripts which use non-Posix
> > &g
On Sat, 2006-11-18 at 11:30 +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> > Well, the goal was (in part) to catch scripts which use non-Posix
> > features of echo and test; why are non-Posix features of ls not an
> > issue?
>
>
> Since I cannot think of a legitimate reason for anyone to use
> ls in a shell scr
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 18:15 -0500, Clint Adams wrote:
> A builtin ls might be a good idea for disaster recovery shells,
> though zsh-static does not have it. posh is not intended to be
> such a shell, nor to be particularly useful interactively.
> Since I cannot think of a legitimate reason for an
1 - 100 of 1229 matches
Mail list logo
