On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:53:26PM +0200, Dag Wieers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > than once before as well), I think I'll patch it out of the Debian
> > > package.
> >
> > I think the reason why on Debian it's not liked is because it behaves
> >
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:44:52PM +0200, Dag Wieers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > BTW, its not the (mis-) feature that bugged me so much but the, well,
> > > bullshit explanation of what bash does and does not do. I simply explained
> > > what it i
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:44:52PM +0200, Dag Wieers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > BTW, its not the (mis-) feature that bugged me so much but the, well,
> > bullshit explanation of what bash does and does not do. I simply explained
> > what it is in clear words, as there was no logic involved in t
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:53:26PM +0200, Dag Wieers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > than once before as well), I think I'll patch it out of the Debian package.
>
> I think the reason why on Debian it's not liked is because it behaves
> differently than Red Hat/CentOS/Fedora in this regard.
While
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:49:36PM +1000, Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:31:10AM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> > > Come on folks, this is a BUG, not a wishlist item. It destroys a setting a
> > > user has made w
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:49:36PM +1000, Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:31:10AM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> > Come on folks, this is a BUG, not a wishlist item. It destroys a setting a
> > user has made without asking.
> >
> > > How it works in Bash is th
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 08:49:36PM +1000, Andrew Pollock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Less anger :-)
>
> fwiw, I'm inclined to agree with you, changing the xterm's title is somewhat
> obnoxious, and from my research, there appears to be no way to retrieve the
> current title, so there's no way t
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 01:53:26PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Andrew Pollock wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:31:10AM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> > > Come on folks, this is a BUG, not a wishlist item. It destroys a setting a
> > > user has made without asking.
> > >
>
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:31:10AM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> > Come on folks, this is a BUG, not a wishlist item. It destroys a setting a
> > user has made without asking.
> >
> > > How it works in Bash is that the PROMPT_COMMAND contains the escape
On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 11:31:10AM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> Come on folks, this is a BUG, not a wishlist item. It destroys a setting a
> user has made without asking.
>
> > How it works in Bash is that the PROMPT_COMMAND contains the escape
> >
>
> T
Come on folks, this is a BUG, not a wishlist item. It destroys a setting a
user has made without asking.
> How it works in Bash is that the PROMPT_COMMAND contains the escape
>
This is complete and utter bullshit. PROMPT_COMMAND does exactly what it
does
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Michael Deegan wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:28:21PM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > > Not at this time. Before I come up with a patch (which is really trivial)
> > > I'm wondering why you are opposed to it, or if there's somet
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006, Michael Deegan wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:28:21PM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > Not at this time. Before I come up with a patch (which is really trivial)
> > I'm wondering why you are opposed to it, or if there's something that can
> > be done to find a common ground
On Wed, Jan 18, 2006 at 02:28:21PM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote:
> Not at this time. Before I come up with a patch (which is really trivial)
> I'm wondering why you are opposed to it, or if there's something that can
> be done to find a common ground. I'm reluctant to add yet another option
> that on
On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Michael Deegan wrote:
> IWBNI dstat could be told not to touch the xterm window title, without
> having to resort to tricks such as lying about the terminal type.
Not at this time. Before I come up with a patch (which is really trivial)
I'm wondering why you are opposed to i
Package: dstat
Version: 0.6.1-1
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
IWBNI dstat could be told not to touch the xterm window title, without
having to resort to tricks such as lying about the terminal type.
Thanks!
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (50
16 matches
Mail list logo
