On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:36 PM Laslo Hunhold wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 May 2020 12:18:33 -0700
> Michael Forney wrote:
>
> Dear Michael,
>
> > Whether you like it or not, it's the most common usage of tar by far,
> > and as far as I know, the only one that was ever standardized. You are
> > not
> > At least, I would print a warning if the old style syntax is seen so
> > people start fixing their scripts.
>
> On what basis are scripts written to the SUSv2 specification broken?
On the basis that tar was already specified as deprecated in SUSv1 26
years ago, and that sbase follows last
On Mon, 18 May 2020 12:18:33 -0700
Michael Forney wrote:
Dear Michael,
> Whether you like it or not, it's the most common usage of tar by far,
> and as far as I know, the only one that was ever standardized. You are
> not forced to use this syntax, the usage following the Utility Syntax
>
On 2020-05-18, Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> I have objections for this patch. I don't like the old style and it's
> horribly annoying with tools like unrar and 7z as well. I don't know
> why the compression tools all ignore years of established command line
> syntax, but I think we shouldn't chime in
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 1:07 PM Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2020 22:39:00 +0700
> Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote:
>
> Dear Đoàn,
>
> > Sorry, but isn't no-dash is the one specified by POSIX:
> > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xcu/tar.html
> > Please excuse my ignorance, I
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 06:59:36PM +0200, Laslo Hunhold wrote:
> POSIX "replaced" tar with pax(1)[0],
I'm all for promoting pax (or cpio) over tar, whether with find or what
was that long discussion about a replacement for it from a while ago.
Though on output it seems a bit primitive to support
> Every other tar implementation I've looked at supports either both
> dash-less argument, and arguments with dashes, or only dash-less
> argument. sbase tar is the only tar that only supports arguments with a
> dash, so to use tar as portably as possible, one has to not have a dash
> with the
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:44 AM Quentin Rameau wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> > Dear Michael,
> >
> > > Thanks for the patch, Ethan.
> > >
> > > This patch looks fine to me, but seeing as we used to support this
> > > usage before it was reverted in [0], I'd like to see if anyone else
> > > has
On Mon, 18 May 2020 22:39:00 +0700
Đoàn Trần Công Danh wrote:
Dear Đoàn,
> Sorry, but isn't no-dash is the one specified by POSIX:
> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xcu/tar.html
> Please excuse my ignorance, I couldn't find newer specification.
no, this is no ignorance. POSIX
On 2020-05-18 16:44:24+0200, Quentin Rameau wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> > Dear Michael,
> >
> > > Thanks for the patch, Ethan.
> > >
> > > This patch looks fine to me, but seeing as we used to support this
> > > usage before it was reverted in [0], I'd like to see if anyone else
> > > has comments.
Hi all,
> Dear Michael,
>
> > Thanks for the patch, Ethan.
> >
> > This patch looks fine to me, but seeing as we used to support this
> > usage before it was reverted in [0], I'd like to see if anyone else
> > has comments. The approach you used avoids the code duplication that
> > may have
It seems like they only publish themes that are developed by the
arcticicestudio github account. So it wouldn't be possible to get st or dwm
published there unless they developed it.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, May 18, 2020 12:22 PM, depsterr wrote:
> That could be a good
That could be a good idea, though I am unsure of how to do so. I'll look into
it. While I'm at it I could try to get st listed as well, since it also has a
nord patch.
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, May 18, 2020 4:21 AM, Ivan Tham wrote:
> Hi depsterr,
>
> Maybe you might want
On Mon, 18 May 2020 02:08:12 -0700
Michael Forney wrote:
Dear Michael,
> Thanks for the patch, Ethan.
>
> This patch looks fine to me, but seeing as we used to support this
> usage before it was reverted in [0], I'd like to see if anyone else
> has comments. The approach you used avoids the
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 11:28:51AM +0200, Jakub Leszczak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > It's been only 4 days since the last reply.
>
> Sorry. Maybe I am just to eager for reply, I thought you might have
> forgotten about this thread.
>
> > Does removing the updatewindowtype() call cause any regressions?
On 2020-05-15, Ethan Sommer wrote:
> this allows tar to be called in the common form "tar " instead of only
> allowing "tar -"
Thanks for the patch, Ethan.
This patch looks fine to me, but seeing as we used to support this
usage before it was reverted in [0], I'd like to see if anyone else
has
Hi,
> It's been only 4 days since the last reply.
Sorry. Maybe I am just to eager for reply, I thought you might have
forgotten about this thread.
> Does removing the updatewindowtype() call cause any regressions?
Do you mean removing updatewindowtype() call from propertynotify()?
In theory
On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 09:05:01AM +0200, Jakub Leszczak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thread went silent. Do you have any more comments or suggestions? I
> don't know whether you are interested in making such change into
> mainline or not.
>
> Br,
> Jakub Leszczak
>
Hi Jakub,
It's been only 4 days
Hi,
Thread went silent. Do you have any more comments or suggestions? I
don't know whether you are interested in making such change into
mainline or not.
Br,
Jakub Leszczak
19 matches
Mail list logo
