On Thu, 8 Jun 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 01:02:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
There are still several scripts in Debian which depend on /usr/bin/nawk.
All of them should work with /usr/bin/awk.
So I guess we should require them to be /usr/bin/awk.
Yes, that's
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 01:32:16PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
I've just read through the virtual packages list, and there's barely a
virtual package which either doesn't do this already, for example awk
says:
awk Anything
On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 01:02:26PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
The same way we say (POSIX) shell scripts should use /bin/sh and not
/bin/bash we should probably say awk scripts should use /usr/bin/awk,
not /usr/bin/nawk.
Are there a significant number of pieces of software which
On Mon, Jun 05, 2000 at 01:32:16PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
I've just read through the virtual packages list, and there's barely a
virtual package which either doesn't do this already, for example awk
says:
awk Anything providing suitable /usr/bin/{awk,nawk} (*)
On Wed, 24 May 2000, Julian Gilbey wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 10:04:04AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
My original statement: we should document the APIs provided by
virtual packages.
My modified statement in light of all the feedback I've gotten: we
should document whatever common
On 17 May 2000 10:04:04 -0700, Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl R. Witty) writes:
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But a package which Recommends: www-browser needs no standard
interface whatsoever,
On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 10:04:04AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
My original statement: we should document the APIs provided by
virtual packages.
My modified statement in light of all the feedback I've gotten: we
should document whatever common interface (including none) that our
virtual
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Carl R. Witty) writes:
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But a package which Recommends: www-browser needs no standard
interface whatsoever, for example.
I believe they all fit this template:
command-line:
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
Two things I'd like to see done with the virtual package system:
1. Define APIs for all virtual packages.
2. Tie virtual packages to the
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
Two things I'd like to see done with the virtual package system:
1. Define APIs for all virtual packages.
2. Tie virtual packages to the alternatives system, somehow.
The former
On Sun, May 14, 2000 at 11:56:29AM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
But a package which Recommends: www-browser needs no standard
interface whatsoever, for example.
I believe they all fit this template:
command-line: package-specific-program-name url
Also there's one little difference
On 14-May-00, 13:56 (CDT), Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Julian Gilbey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But a package which Recommends: www-browser needs no standard
interface whatsoever, for example.
I believe they all fit this template:
command-line:
Josip Rodin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Also there's one little difference between packages needing
www-browser and mp3-decoder: a lot of packages ship HTML and by
depending (any sort of dep) on www-browser they signal the user
he'll need a program to see the text. However, there aren't any (I
13 matches
Mail list logo
