also sprach Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.01.31.2019 +0100]:
You forget to notice one thing, these are debian specific. The gettext.sh
script, however, is meant to be used by just . gettext.sh by random
third party programs that can be expected to run on FreeBSD as well as
See also
[ Removing the Cc for the bug, adding -policy, and setting M-F-T, as this ]
[ is really a policy question.]
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 11:45:57AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
Matthew Palmer wrote:
If I do 'man ls' I can get the semantics for the ls command.
Op ma, 31-01-2005 te 10:11 +0100, schreef Adrian von Bidder:
On Saturday 29 January 2005 18.28, Frank Kster wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, sean finney wrote:
why not do something like this in
any script that uses gettext:
#!/bin/sh
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 05:15:42PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:40:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
You forgot to quote last thing I said when closing the bug.
So I'll
Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
All other packages have their script sniplets in /usr/share/package,
e.g. devscripts, debhelper, debian-cd, ...
You forget to notice one thing, these are debian specific. The gettext.sh
script, however, is meant to be used by just . gettext.sh by random
third party
Adrian von Bidder wrote:
You wouldn't need to change every script - you just need to move
gettext.sh to /usr/share/gettext/scripts and create /usr/bin/gettext.sh
with the content Sean suggested.
Which buys us what?
This new gettext.sh would still be a non-executable script snippet
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
Well, then add line like
echo gettext 'WARNING: This program uses the (deprecated) /usr/bin/gettext.sh
interface. This is a bug' 2
To that file in /usr/bin. It'll ensure a quick transition, I'm sure.
Shouldn't we get upstream to deprecate that
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Adrian von Bidder wrote:
You wouldn't need to change every script - you just need to move
gettext.sh to /usr/share/gettext/scripts and create /usr/bin/gettext.sh
with the content Sean suggested.
Which buys us what?
This new gettext.sh would
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Martin Schulze wrote:
Adrian von Bidder wrote:
You wouldn't need to change every script - you just need to move
gettext.sh to /usr/share/gettext/scripts and create /usr/bin/gettext.sh
with the content Sean suggested.
Which buys us what?
This new gettext.sh
Matthew Palmer wrote:
If I do 'man ls' I can get the semantics for the ls command. No
such benefit is provided me by gettext.sh. Hmm, time to report a bug
against gettext-base for not having a manual page for gettext.sh...
I realize that you're probaly using that example as a rhetorical
Anthony Towns wrote:
Neither. Shell snippets should not go in PATH unless they also happen to
be programs.
I hate to say it aj, but you just gave him a hell of an out there...
#!/bin/sh
# This is /usr/in/gettext.sh
if [ $0 = gettext.sh ]; then
echo Ha ha, I'm executable, so I can be
Joey Hess wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
Neither. Shell snippets should not go in PATH unless they also happen to
be programs.
I hate to say it aj, but you just gave him a hell of an out there...
Yeah, *shrug*. Rhetoric is getting pretty boring. Bug#293096, fwiw.
Cheers,
aj
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Saturday 29 January 2005 18.28, Frank Küster wrote:
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, sean finney wrote:
why not do something like this in
any script that uses gettext:
#!/bin/sh
PATH=${PATH}:/usr/share/gettext/scripts
. gettext.sh
Because we
Hello,
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 02:34:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Santiago Vila wrote:
If you want to make policy that /usr/bin should only contain executables,
go ahead, make a policy proposal,
There is no policy issue here -- the FHS is already entirely clear on
this; /usr/bin is
ma, 2005-01-31 kello 14:24 +1000, Anthony Towns kirjoitti:
Dude, PATH is for programs; gettext.sh is a shell library. It doesn't
really matter that . happens to search PATH for shell libraries --
unless they also happen to be binaries, PATH is just not an appropriate
place for libraries.
ma, 2005-01-31 kello 13:21 +0200, Lars Wirzenius kirjoitti:
ma, 2005-01-31 kello 14:24 +1000, Anthony Towns kirjoitti:
Dude, PATH is for programs; gettext.sh is a shell library. It doesn't
really matter that . happens to search PATH for shell libraries --
unless they also happen to be
Santiago Vila wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Because I don't wanna play by the rules! is not a rationale.
You are mistaken. I want to play by the rules, but the rules say
executables should go to /usr/bin, *not* that everything in /usr/bin
should be executable.
It also says that
Santiago Vila wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote:
I suggest that you read the reply by the author. For the benefit of
those who don't have web browsers, I'll quote it here:
gettext.sh is meant to be sourced from shell scripts, using the .
command. This command looks in $PATH, but
Hello John,
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 11:46:12AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Jochen Voss writes:
Any references for this? I was a little bit disappointed that the FHS
was so unclear about /usr/bin and I do not know where else to look.
While the FHS is not as explicit as it might be, with the
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 12:18:28PM +, Jochen Voss wrote:
Hello John,
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 11:46:12AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Jochen Voss writes:
Any references for this? I was a little bit disappointed that the FHS
was so unclear about /usr/bin and I do not know where else to
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote:
Hello John,
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 11:46:12AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Jochen Voss writes:
Any references for this? I was a little bit disappointed that the FHS
was so unclear about /usr/bin and I do not know where else to look.
While
#include hallo.h
* Jeroen van Wolffelaar [Sun, Jan 30 2005, 01:58:32PM]:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 11:46:12AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Jochen Voss writes:
Any references for this? I was a little bit disappointed that the FHS
was so unclear about /usr/bin and I do not know where else
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:40:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
You forgot to quote last thing I said when closing the bug.
So I'll repeat: Please read the logs for non-bug Bug#292759, where the
author
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:40:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote:
[...]
My question: does anybody have further references for the question
whether it is ok or maybe even preferable to install non-programs in
Goswin von Brederlow [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:40:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote:
[...]
My question: does anybody have further references for the question
whether it is ok or
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 17:18 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Because I don't wanna play by the rules! is not a rationale. So you have
to specify a path -- so what? The way things stand at the moment, if I were
to drop a gettext.sh in my
Adam D. Barratt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 17:18 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Matthew Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[...]
Because I don't wanna play by the rules! is not a rationale. So you have
to specify a path -- so what? The way things stand at the
Hello,
until now I was under the impression that /usr/bin/ should only
contain programs which are expected to be directly called by users.
In bug #292759 the maintainer of gettext-base claims, that it is also
ok to install shell script sniplets, which are not executable on
itself into /usr/bin/
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 04:18:30PM +, Jochen Voss wrote:
In bug #292759 the maintainer of gettext-base claims, that it is also
ok to install shell script sniplets, which are not executable on
itself into /usr/bin/
This is not a bug.
The file gettext.sh is meant to be sourced
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote:
[...]
My question: does anybody have further references for the question
whether it is ok or maybe even preferable to install non-programs in
/usr/bin?
You forgot to quote last thing I said when closing the bug.
So I'll repeat: Please read the logs
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 11:31:52AM -0500, sean finney wrote:
looking at the script snippet in question, all it does is set a couple
functions/variables, so it certainly should not be in /usr/bin. hell,
it's not even executable.
Yes, this was my point.
All the best,
Jochen
--
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:40:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
You forgot to quote last thing I said when closing the bug.
So I'll repeat: Please read the logs for non-bug Bug#292759, where the
author explains the rationale for putting gettext.sh in /usr/bin.
Sorry, I did not find relevant
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:40:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
So I'll repeat: Please read the logs for non-bug Bug#292759, where the
author explains the rationale for putting gettext.sh in /usr/bin.
you want . gettext.sh to work, which means you want it somewhere
in the default system path.
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote:
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:40:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
You forgot to quote last thing I said when closing the bug.
So I'll repeat: Please read the logs for non-bug Bug#292759, where the
author explains the rationale for putting gettext.sh
Jochen Voss writes:
until now I was under the impression that /usr/bin/ should only contain
programs which are expected to be directly called by users.
In bug #292759 the maintainer of gettext-base claims, that it is also ok
to install shell script sniplets, which are not executable on itself
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, sean finney wrote:
why not do something like this in
any script that uses gettext:
#!/bin/sh
PATH=${PATH}:/usr/share/gettext/scripts
. gettext.sh
Because we already have /usr/bin for that and there is no need to
change every script that uses gettext.
--
To
Hello John,
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 10:45:00AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
Jochen Voss writes:
until now I was under the impression that /usr/bin/ should only contain
programs which are expected to be directly called by users.
In bug #292759 the maintainer of gettext-base claims, that it
Santiago Vila [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, sean finney wrote:
why not do something like this in
any script that uses gettext:
#!/bin/sh
PATH=${PATH}:/usr/share/gettext/scripts
. gettext.sh
Because we already have /usr/bin for that and there is no need to
change
Hello Santiago,
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 06:06:31PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
Because we already have /usr/bin for that and there is no need to
change every script that uses gettext.
The for that is my question. Do you have any reference
for this usage of /usr/bin? Is this suggested to put
Jochen Voss writes:
Any references for this? I was a little bit disappointed that the FHS
was so unclear about /usr/bin and I do not know where else to look.
While the FHS is not as explicit as it might be, with the application of a
bit of common sense it is sufficiently clear.
--
John Hasler
John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Jochen Voss writes:
Any references for this? I was a little bit disappointed that the FHS
was so unclear about /usr/bin and I do not know where else to look.
While the FHS is not as explicit as it might be, with the application of a
bit of common
On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:40:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote:
[...]
My question: does anybody have further references for the question
whether it is ok or maybe even preferable to install non-programs in
/usr/bin?
You forgot to quote last
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Because I don't wanna play by the rules! is not a rationale.
You are mistaken. I want to play by the rules, but the rules say
executables should go to /usr/bin, *not* that everything in /usr/bin
should be executable.
So you have to specify a path --
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 12:28:53AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Matthew Palmer wrote:
Because I don't wanna play by the rules! is not a rationale.
You are mistaken. I want to play by the rules, but the rules say
executables should go to /usr/bin, *not* that everything
44 matches
Mail list logo
