| 1 |
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 23:37:20 +0200 |
| 2 |
Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:05:19 +0000 (UTC) |
| 4 |
> "Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto" <jmbsvicetto@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sat, 27 Sep 2014, Tom Wijsman wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:22:45 +0100 |
| 7 |
> > > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 8 |
> > >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:47:14 +0200 |
| 9 |
> > >> Luca Barbato <lu_zero@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> > >>> Because I'd expect a stage3 to be posix compliant |
| 11 |
> > >> |
| 12 |
> > >> I agree. It's time to replace nano with Vim. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > It seems like everyone needs to "chill" a bit. Ciaran wasn't |
| 15 |
> > trolling, he was making a point. I'm sure everyone around here |
| 16 |
> > understood his point. There were no attacks and no "foul language", |
| 17 |
> > so can we move forward? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Constructiveness does not rely on just making points, as replacing |
| 20 |
> nano with Vim is out of the context of adding bc back to stage3. |
| 21 |
> Editors are a world apart from a build tool, even more so from being |
| 22 |
> POSIX. In order to move forward beyond this point, that needs to be |
| 23 |
> recognized. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
But POSIX does describe vi. That was the point... |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
(And until fairly recently, texlive used to require 'ex' if you wanted |
| 28 |
to build it fully from unpatched sources.) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives