On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 4:17 AM Laurent Bercot wrote:
> Red Hat distributions provided a /usr/bin/cd program for some time,
> that did exactly that. Maybe it's still around on Fedora/CentOS.
>
They still have /usr/bin/{cd, umask, wait}, which are just
#!/bin/sh
builtin cd/umask/wait "$@"
--
> [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=906250#22
That's an incredibly disingenuous argument. Debian isn't POSIX-
compliant by any stretch of the imagination, and they currently
don't provide POSIX-compliant cd/umask/wait binaries because they
have correctly identified that tho
El mar., 4 sept. 2018 a las 2:07, Shengjing Zhu escribió:
>
> And I'm mostly agree that binaries like cd/umask/wait are not POSIX
> compatible[1]
>
> [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=906250#22
This bug is closed, and there is now an execline package in Debian
Sid, so it seems
Laurent Bercot writes:
> I totally understand your predicament, but I unfortunately have no
> good solution for you, except "educate your peers".
I have a good technical solution for you:
For the Nix package manager we have packaged (most) skaware software.
You can easily install Nix on a De
However the binaries(cd, umask, wait) that cause problem are not
dependency of s6.
Those binaries are not causing problems.
What *is* causing problems is fellow developers who *think* those
binaries are problematic, for reasons that all come from ignorance
of how Unix (and the shell) works.
On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 2:15 AM Laurent Bercot wrote:
> Why is it so hard to do things the right way instead of looking for
> technical workarounds to political problems (which never works)?
Because it's hard to tell what is right...The rule for what's right is
already political(or policy) probl
Maybe I could just name the package like libexecline(which has
binaries as helper programs). Then users will think they can't get an
execline pacakge.
This would confuse users, because execline is not a library, it's
a package with binaries (and that also includes a library for
execline helper
On Mon, Sep 03, 2018 at 12:46:10PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 5:36 AM Guillermo wrote:
> > You don't need to do that. You *can* install the full set of execline
> > binaries in /usr/lib/execline using --enable-absolute-paths, (and you
> > should add --shebangdir=\$${prefi
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 5:36 AM Guillermo wrote:
> You don't need to do that. You *can* install the full set of execline
> binaries in /usr/lib/execline using --enable-absolute-paths, (and you
> should add --shebangdir=\$${prefix}/lib/execline too), just like in
> your OP. Both s6 and s6-rc should
El dom., 2 sept. 2018 a las 13:48, Shengjing Zhu escribió:
>
> From your previous comment, s6 not only uses execline library, but
> also its binaries. Can I get a list of binaries that s6 will use? So I
> can only package these.
You don't need to do that. You *can* install the full set of execline
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:32 AM Laurent Bercot wrote:
> I will then suggest that you refrain from packaging execline for
> Debian
Somehow I agree that, I don't want to be the person who bring
controversy with upstream and distributions.
The real software I want to package is s6. I do use it in
But I probably will not install binaries like `if, exec, wait` to
default PATH(like /usr/bin). Although I understand this is possible
technically(and currently no other programs claim these names).
The actual reason is that I can't afford time to argue with other
developers. When I ask on debian-
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 11:17:20PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> The actual reason is that I can't afford time to argue with other
> developers. When I ask on debian-devel list, at least someone is
> object to this[1]. I'd to admit that I'm not good at argument. The
> simple solution I see is to pu
On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 6:05 PM Laurent Bercot wrote:
> When you write 'execlineb -c "if { foo } blah"', the execlineb binary
> will execute into an argv starting with "if". If the "if" command
> isn't in its PATH, then it won't find it.
> --enable-absolute-paths cannot rewrite it into "/usr/li
Thanks for this note, I haven't looked at these packages. At first I
thought execline binaries will only be called inside execlinep
scripts. Could you give some examples that s6 calls these binaries
directly except exelinep?
In addition to what Casper said: for instance, some of the
s6-fdholder
On Sun, Sep 02, 2018 at 02:12:47PM +0800, Shengjing Zhu wrote:
> Thanks for this note, I haven't looked at these packages. At first I
> thought execline binaries will only be called inside execlinep
> scripts. Could you give some examples that s6 calls these binaries
> directly except exelinep?
My
Hi,
On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 3:56 AM Laurent Bercot wrote:
> Do not do this.
> Several programs, including s6 and s6-rc, rely on execline binaries
> to be in their PATH. They will not work if you segregate execline
> binaries.
Thanks for this note, I haven't looked at these packages. At first
I intend to package skarnet softwares in Debian. When packaging
execline, I find it produces a lot of binaries with common names. Thus
I want to put them in path like /usr/lib/execline/.
Do not do this.
Several programs, including s6 and s6-rc, rely on execline binaries
to be in their PATH. Th
18 matches
Mail list logo
