On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 08:07:07PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
>
> Firstly, I think we could expand on what we mean by "proper locations" -
> i.e. what makes us use /bin instead of /usr/bin? I can think of 2
> reasons: i) FHS and ii) Bootscript requirements for scripts run before
> /usr is m
On 8/16/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> steve crosby wrote:
>
> > The patch needs a proper LFS header applied and sending upstream
> > (hint, hint, nudge, nudge). Tested here on udev-067 without issue.
>
> Hmm, this is the second patch you've attached (and Randy sent a
> similarl
steve crosby wrote:
The patch needs a proper LFS header applied and sending upstream
(hint, hint, nudge, nudge). Tested here on udev-067 without issue.
Thanks very much Steve. I just submitted it after re-diffing; even with
Bruce's changes it wouldn't apply. Here's hoping I didn't screw the
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> steve crosby wrote:
>
>> The patch needs a proper LFS header applied and sending upstream
>> (hint, hint, nudge, nudge). Tested here on udev-067 without issue.
>
> Hmm, this is the second patch you've attached (and Randy sent a
> similarly affected one too) that fails to
steve crosby wrote:
The patch needs a proper LFS header applied and sending upstream
(hint, hint, nudge, nudge). Tested here on udev-067 without issue.
Hmm, this is the second patch you've attached (and Randy sent a
similarly affected one too) that fails to apply cleanly. Vim seems to
think
On 8/15/05, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> work. The ideal solution would be to figure out a way of getting the
> test/udev-test.pl script to figure out whether it should call
> /usr/bin/test or /bin/test. However, I'm only going to invest time in
> this if someone can convince m
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> Move programs that the bootscripts require to /bin:
>
> mv /usr/bin/{head,sleep} /bin"
`head' does not belong in /bin IMHO. Red Hat and Debian both agree with
me. Surely `sed' can provide the same functionality for the bootscripts.
> That then leaves us with the followi
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> It appears as though 'tcsh' doesn't, but how many alternative shells
> should we even care about?
Plus, tcsh is a C shell, not a Bourne shell. All the bootscripts are
written for a Bourne shell, and will consequently fail horribly if run
in csh or tcsh. ;-)
So I don't t
Randy McMurchy wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/14/05 14:07 CST:
However, I'm only going to invest time in
this if someone can convince me of why we *need* to move 'test' and '['
to /bin.
They are both used in /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions?
That's a shell script (with the magic
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> That then leaves us with the following binaries that I can't see a need
> to move from /usr/bin:
>
> [, basename, install, test, touch
>
> Does anyone know why we do so?
'[' is an alias for 'test' and is only used by some shells that don't
have them set as builtin. T
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 08/14/05 14:07 CST:
> However, I'm only going to invest time in
> this if someone can convince me of why we *need* to move 'test' and '['
> to /bin.
They are both used in /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions?
--
Randy
rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220]
11 matches
Mail list logo