On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 08:23 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Thomas Bushnell BSG (tb@becket.net) [061117 00:48]: > > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 20:51 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: > > > > I can live with a list of features. But then, geez, don't you think the > > > > actual list should be given? Saying "works on a Posix compatible shell" > > > > restricts way too much (you can't use "debconf" then) unless we wink and > > > > > > Could you just stop spreading this debconf example, it's utterly wrong. > > > > Are you saying that Posix.2 limits what things a shell can make a > > builtin? Can you provide a reference? > > Totally irrelevant to the section we're discussing. But that has been > told you before, and you continue to ignore it. Repeating "no, you're wrong" without saying why, does not actually advance the discussion at all. What *are* you saying about the debconf example? How can it be "utterly wrong" when it's an example, not a thesis? What is the thesis which is "utterly wrong" here? Thomas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part