| Message ID | 20141110113500.GA4401@free.fr (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Delegated to: | Herbert Xu |
| Headers | show |
Stéphane Aulery <saulery@free.fr> wrote: > [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: utf-8, 12 lines --] > > Hello, > > Here is a small patch reported by a user of Debian [1]. Could you please > integrate? Thank you for your help. > > [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=646847 This patch also appears bogus as csh is an alternative to dash. Cheers,
Le lundi 10 novembre 2014 à 09:27:42, Herbert Xu a écrit : > Stéphane Aulery <saulery@free.fr> wrote: > > > > [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=646847 > > This patch also appears bogus as csh is an alternative to dash. That's what I say too. Then I told myself that it was more interesting than csh or ksh information. Otherwise it would add sh, bash ... As you want, at least I know if I close this bug has waited too long. Thanks for yours help.
On 11/10/2014 2:27 PM, Herbert Xu wrote: > Stéphane Aulery <saulery@free.fr> wrote: >> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: utf-8, 12 lines --] >> >> Hello, >> >> Here is a small patch reported by a user of Debian [1]. Could you please >> integrate? Thank you for your help. >> >> [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=646847 > > This patch also appears bogus as csh is an alternative to dash. Even if csh is intentionally in the "See also" section despite not being referenced anywhere else, is it also intentional that chsh is not in that section despite the earlier reference? Would a patch that leaves csh but also adds chsh be more appropriate, or do you prefer to leave it as it is now? Cheers, Harald van Dijk > Cheers, -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dash" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:02:41PM +0100, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > Even if csh is intentionally in the "See also" section despite not > being referenced anywhere else, is it also intentional that chsh is > not in that section despite the earlier reference? Would a patch > that leaves csh but also adds chsh be more appropriate, or do you > prefer to leave it as it is now? The see also section is not meant to be an exhaustive list of all commands referred to in the manual. It's meant to be a list of manual entries related to dash. So no I'm not going to add chsh there just because there was an earlier reference. Cheers,
Le mardi 11 novembre 2014 à 03:20:46, Herbert Xu a écrit : > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 04:02:41PM +0100, Harald van Dijk wrote: > > > > Even if csh is intentionally in the "See also" section despite not > > being referenced anywhere else, is it also intentional that chsh is > > not in that section despite the earlier reference? Would a patch > > that leaves csh but also adds chsh be more appropriate, or do you > > prefer to leave it as it is now? > > The see also section is not meant to be an exhaustive list of > all commands referred to in the manual. It's meant to be a list > of manual entries related to dash. So no I'm not going to add > chsh there just because there was an earlier reference. Ok, I leave the bug open because it also relates to the numbering of file descriptors. Cheers,
--- dash.1.old 2014-11-10 12:30:45.305874210 +0100 +++ dash.1.new 2014-11-10 12:31:10.873999206 +0100 @@ -2322,7 +2322,7 @@ .Pa /etc/profile .El .Sh SEE ALSO -.Xr csh 1 , +.Xr chsh 1 , .Xr echo 1 , .Xr getopt 1 , .Xr ksh 1 ,