On Saturday 25 July 2009 15:21:58 Greg Troxel wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> I didn't see anything not in sh in those scripts. The -x is there
> because it was before - I was trying not to change behavior.
>
> Is there a quick way to use the plugins to test?
You are right. I tested the scripts and found no
Thanks.
I didn't see anything not in sh in those scripts. The -x is there
because it was before - I was trying not to change behavior.
Is there a quick way to use the plugins to test?
pgpXGBg1XX019.pgp
Description: PGP signature
---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi,
Am Sa den 25. Jul 2009 um 9:20 schrieb Laurent Monin:
> But for patches against plugins, i'm unsure.
> What do you all think about those ?
Am Fr den 24. Jul 2009 um 16:19 schrieb Greg Troxel:
> Index: plugins/ufraw/geeqie-ufraw
> =
Greg Troxel a écrit :
> Geeqie has several bashisms which seem unnecessary. I don't use all
> these features so perhaps one or more of the scripts does actually need
> bash. If it does, it should be found via configure and listed as an
> explicit dependency. My experience has been that 95% of sc
Geeqie has several bashisms which seem unnecessary. I don't use all
these features so perhaps one or more of the scripts does actually need
bash. If it does, it should be found via configure and listed as an
explicit dependency. My experience has been that 95% of scripts that
say /bin/bash work
