Re: LSB spec included commands
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > uudecode (not needed)
> > > uuencode (not needed)
> >
> > I use uuencode/uudecode often, as microsoft products generates and
> > can read this, and I have scripts that uses it. I would like
> > it to stay.
>
> Can be versus must be. Nothing says you cant have uudecode there, just that
> an LSB cant rely on it
My first response was, "I get lots of stuff off the net that either
requires uudecode, or uudeview to unpack.", so it is very useful in that
reguard. But when I think of package managers and their delivery systems,
I can't come up with one distribution that delivers anything in uue
format.
In several ways it seems we have lost site of some of our goals for this
work, but if we're still looking to provide minimal standard tools for
third party software vendors, then I agree with Alan. Actually I would be
a bit stiffer and not even mention them in the command spec. KISS.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- See www.linuxpress.com for more details _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Reply to: