From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Harald van Dijk Subject: Re: dash.1 - Confusion between two pages c[h]sh Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 16:02:41 +0100 Message-ID: <5460D391.2090603@gigawatt.nl> References: <20141110132742.GA8481@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from hosting12.csv-networks.nl ([84.244.151.217]:36002 "EHLO hosting12.csv-networks.nl" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752723AbaKJPC6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Nov 2014 10:02:58 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20141110132742.GA8481@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: dash-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: dash@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Cc: =?windows-1252?Q?St=E9phane_Aulery?= , dash@vger.kernel.org, 646847@bugs.debian.org, 646847-submitter@bugs.debian.org On 11/10/2014 2:27 PM, Herbert Xu wrote: > St=E9phane Aulery wrote: >> [-- text/plain, encoding 8bit, charset: utf-8, 12 lines --] >> >> Hello, >> >> Here is a small patch reported by a user of Debian [1]. Could you pl= ease >> integrate? Thank you for your help. >> >> [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D646847 > > This patch also appears bogus as csh is an alternative to dash. Even if csh is intentionally in the "See also" section despite not bein= g=20 referenced anywhere else, is it also intentional that chsh is not in=20 that section despite the earlier reference? Would a patch that leaves=20 csh but also adds chsh be more appropriate, or do you prefer to leave i= t=20 as it is now? Cheers, Harald van Dijk > Cheers,