Re: [dev] [dvtm] Scrolling back

On Sat, Oct 15, 2016, at 08:40, Bruno Vetter wrote: > Dear all, > > I just checked out dvtm on a stali installation with default config.h. As > a default, mod+page up is configured for scrollback along with shift-page > up, which seems more convenient for me. > > From my understanding,

Re: [dev] [stali] How to view manpages?

On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 5:57 AM, Bruno Vetter wrote: > Guten Tag, > > trying out stali I see that manpages are included, but how can I actually > view them? Before I install anything I want to ensure to do it in the most > suckless way. > > Thank you > Bruno The

Re: [dev] app locations?

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:01:12AM -0400, stephen Turner wrote: > So i have determined the locations of most of sbase and ubase using > the linux FHS [0]. I have a few that needs categories for the legacy > style linux and was hoping someone would have a few pointers. I > offered my thoughts based

[dev] app locations?

So i have determined the locations of most of sbase and ubase using the linux FHS [0]. I have a few that needs categories for the legacy style linux and was hoping someone would have a few pointers. I offered my thoughts based on the FHS description of the directories, correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: [dev] app locations?

In my opinion: /bin - for binaries that come with the system /usr/bin - binaries installed the default package manager, which is at /bin /usr/local/bin - is for binaries installed by the user without using the package manager */sbin - is nonsense However, I still support adding everything to

Re: [dev] app locations?

On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 16:07:24 +0100 Dimitris Papastamos wrote: Hey, > everything in /bin I agree Dimitris. Some people really do love about the benefits of separating into /bin, /usr/bin, /usr/local/bin, /opt/bin and so on. Let's stop this madness! There is no reason to support

Re: [dev] app locations?

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 07:03:59PM +0300, Ali H. Fardan wrote: > /bin - for binaries that come with the system So they never get maintained with a package manager? Sounds like a really weird way of doing things. If you bootstrap with a tarball, the distinction becomes meaningless once you've

Re: [dev] app locations?

I had no intention of starting a debate, just wanted a little direction on where to place these few applications appropriate to legacy linux/bsd. I understand its not the common view of the members here, and I'm definitely not trying to say one way is more correct than the other. Sta.Li has its

Re: [dev] app locations?

On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:56:56PM +0200, Laslo Hunhold wrote: > There is no reason to support this ancient concept of a separate > /usr-partition. The age of tape-drives is over, there is no need for > it. And I must admit, it really makes things complicated in a lot of > respects. NFS mounts

Re: [dev] app locations?

> Throw away your Linux-ish idea of "everything is a package", What the heck is wrong with that? And why argue against, if you mentioned it in the first place? I was just pointing out an inconsistency in how it was presented, as if /bin wasn't managed by the package manager. Geez. > and take a

Re: [dev] app locations?

On 2016-10-17 19:44, a...@alexpilon.ca wrote: Throw away your Linux-ish idea of "everything is a package", What the heck is wrong with that? Relax, okay, just relax. And why argue against, if you mentioned it in the first place? I was just pointing out an inconsistency in how it was

Re: [dev] app locations?

On 2016-10-17 19:44, a...@alexpilon.ca wrote: Throw away your Linux-ish idea of "everything is a package", What the heck is wrong with that? Relax, okay, just relax. And why argue against, if you mentioned it in the first place? I was just pointing out an inconsistency in how it was