On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Michael Stone wrote: > On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 11:59:46AM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote: > >I interpret this part of the bug report > >(remember that it was against an older version of sleep > >that still accepted only integer number of seconds): > > > > * sleep(1) argument is in seconds, ferchrissake! If we really > > want sub-microsecond accuracy we would need (aside of turning the kernel > > into RT one and making sure that sleep(1) is locked in core) an argument > > with comparable precision. > > > >as saying that sleep should accept a higher-resolution (e.g., floating point) > >description of the requested sleep interval.
My initial understanding is that back then sleep(1) didn't accept an arbitrary fp argument, and required an integer. Could also be that Al Viro thought that nobody expects sleep(1) to provide the (non-std) support of non-integer argument. > I interpret that as saying that allowing subseconds in sleep is useless > bloat because a shell script can't achieve that level of accuracy I agree that it is useless. Moreover, for those willing to use a higher resolution, thereis the sleepenh package. > anyway. I tend to agree, but I'm not going to make the debian sleep fork > from upstream if you're convinced it's a good idea. Well, if the upstream is convinced that this feature is worth the bloat, you probably should not spend your time on maintaining a fork indeed... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
