On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 09:05:36PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote: > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 07:08:55PM +0100, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 05:05:09PM +0000, Gerrit Pape wrote: > > > do people really choose ash from a menu to have it open an interactive > > > shell in a new window? I wouldn't mind if you simply remove the item > > > from the menu package, I personally don't see a need for it. How did it > > > get there, has it been requested by users? > > > > I will hazard the guess that this file was added to one of the first menu > > package release circa 1997. > > > > However, the Debian menu subpolicy list a dedicated menu section for > > shells (Apps/Shells) and it is more consistent to have all shells listed > > there. (why providing a shell if it is not supposed to be used ?) > > dash primarily is meant to run non-interactively, and to be used as a > standard /bin/sh interpreter for shell scripts. I think I'll add the > menu file to the dash package nevertheless (today's ash package only > provides a symlink /bin/ash -> dash), so it should be fine if you remove > /usr/share/menu/default/ash from the menu package.
Ah, thanks. I though dash was not interactive but ash was (and that was the point of having both). In fact I though ash was the current *BSD version and dash was the Debian version. So why did Herbert renamed ash to dash ? Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
