[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: [Fwd: [Bug 53345] .bash_profile  script is not sourced]
From:       James Richard Tyrer <tyrerj () acm ! org>
Date:       2004-03-01 0:21:21
Message-ID: 40428201.3090404 () acm ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 02:22:29PM -0700, James Richard Tyrer wrote:
> 
>>Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>>
>>>the problem is that you simply don't realize that you severely
>>>misbehaved. under these circumstances i'm not a bit sorry for
>>>calling you names.
>>>
>>
>>I believe that you assumed that I would "misbehave" at some time in
>>the future.  Specifically, you assumed that I would try to have
>>something submitted without first submitting it to you or posting it
>>on BugZilla.  I don't do such things; I don't work that way.  If you
>>wanted to make sure that I would first get your approval before
>>committing something, you should have said that, rather than simply
>>calling me names.
>>
> 
> you still don't get it ...  the report status in bugzilla is a
> version-controlled entity just like some piece of code in cvs. playing
> ping-pong with the maintainer of the relevant product is simply
> inacceptable behaviour.
> 
I have looked over Bugzilla and I have not been able to find any status for 
a bug to mark it: "No One is Allowed to Work on This Bug."

For me to say that I would work on a bug that you had said you woundn't fix 
  is an offer of help.  So, if I get it, what I get is that this is your 
baby and you don't want anybody helping you with it.  Or perhaps I need to 
be able to discerne the difference between when you said you wouldn't fix 
it and meant that working on a fix wasn't allowed and when someone else 
said that he wouldn't fix something and meant that if I wanted it fixed 
that I should work on it my self.
> 
>>>you want Xsession to pretend to be the user's $SHELL, so he doesn't
>>>need to set up the session separately.
>>
>>Not exactly.  I just think that it would be a good idea to use the
>>systems default shell (if possible and especially if not using it
>>causes a problem).  The biggest issue is that Linux systems use Bash
>>and not using Bash causes a problem.
>>
> 
> that's nonsense. that is no such thing as a system default shell, at
> least formally.

You are not making sense (either?).  "Formally" doesn't matter in this 
case.  Most Linux distros come with Bash as the default shell.  Many newbie 
users don't even know that there are other shells.  If it is GNU/Linux then 
it should have Bash as the shell -- yes formally.

--
JRT
 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]