On 9/3/07, Martin Simmons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:29:24 +0200, Kern Sibbald said:
> > To the best of my knowledge the following are not wildcard matches. If they
> > are can you point me to the definition of [:alpha:]?
> >
> > > [36] *[[:alpha:]]/*[[:alnum:]] does not
On Monday 03 September 2007 23:49, Martin Simmons wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:29:24 +0200, Kern Sibbald said:
> >
> > On Monday 03 September 2007 20:28, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> > > On Monday 03 September 2007 19:12:12 Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > > > On Monday 03 September 2007 18:44, Eric Bol
On Monday 03 September 2007 23:14, Martin Simmons wrote:
> > On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 13:45:48 +0200, Kern Sibbald said:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > You would think that wild cards (fnmatch) are well known and that they
> > work the same on all systems. Apparently not.
> >
> > On GNU clib systems,
> >
>
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:29:24 +0200, Kern Sibbald said:
>
> On Monday 03 September 2007 20:28, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> > On Monday 03 September 2007 19:12:12 Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > > On Monday 03 September 2007 18:44, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > It's why we provide the
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2007 13:45:48 +0200, Kern Sibbald said:
>
> Hello,
>
> You would think that wild cards (fnmatch) are well known and that they work
> the same on all systems. Apparently not.
>
> On GNU clib systems,
>
> fnmatch("a*b/*", "abbb/.x", FNM_PATHNAME|FNM_PERIOD) returns fail
>
> > glibc tests are better than before :
> > [18] [/b matches [/b -> FAIL
>
> To the best of my knowledge the following are not wildcard matches. If
> they are can you point me to the definition of [:alpha:]?
>
> > [36] *[[:alpha:]]/*[[:alnum:]] does not match a/b -> FAIL
> > [37] *[![:digit:
On Monday 03 September 2007 20:28, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> On Monday 03 September 2007 19:12:12 Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > On Monday 03 September 2007 18:44, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > It's why we provide the bwild tool... If you are using something
> > > special, you can validate y
On Monday 03 September 2007 19:12:12 Kern Sibbald wrote:
> On Monday 03 September 2007 18:44, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > It's why we provide the bwild tool... If you are using something
> > special, you can validate your expression with this tool.
>
> I don't imagine that you were direc
On Monday 03 September 2007 18:44, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's why we provide the bwild tool... If you are using something
> special, you can validate your expression with this tool.
I don't imagine that you were directing that comment at me -- since I was the
person who wrote bwild :-
On Monday 03 September 2007 18:44, Eric Bollengier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It's why we provide the bwild tool... If you are using something
> special, you can validate your expression with this tool.
>
> I have run the testfnm regress tool from the glibc with the old bacula
> version, and more than one te
Hi,
It's why we provide the bwild tool... If you are using something
special, you can validate your expression with this tool.
I have run the testfnm regress tool from the glibc with the old bacula
version, and more than one tests are failing...
[ 3] a[/]b matches a/b -> FAIL
[ 5] * matches
Kern Sibbald wrote:
> Hello,
>
> You would think that wild cards (fnmatch) are well known and that they work
> the same on all systems. Apparently not.
>
> On GNU clib systems,
>
> fnmatch("a*b/*", "abbb/.x", FNM_PATHNAME|FNM_PERIOD) returns fail
> (i.e. FN_NOMATCH).
>
> and on my vers
12 matches
Mail list logo
