I noticed that, when running configure with:
--enable-no-install-program="groups,id,kill,su,uptime,hostname,arch"
which, by the way, causes these warnings (which are ok I suppose):
configure: WARNING: 'groups' is already not being installed
configure: WARNING: 'su' is already not being installe
Oto Brglez wrote:
> # mkdir /var/folder; cd /var/folder
> # rm -rf ../folder/
> # pwd
Files (and directories which are simply special files) are reference
counted. Effectively the filesystem garbage-collects when the
reference count is reduced to zero.
Because your current working directory was
Gentlemen, what's the deal, or have we been through this before and
I'm just not using the current version or something here on Debian sid
GNU/Linux 2.6.22.
$ ls -al
drwxr-xr-x 2 jidanni jidanni 60 2008-01-03 08:40 .
drwxr-xr-x 3 jidanni jidanni 60 2008-01-03 08:23 ..
-rw-rw-r-- 1 rootjidanni
Hi all!
I was deleting something today with rm and i found the folowing:
I create folder with name "folder" and i go inside of it.
# mkdir /var/folder; cd /var/folder
Then, i create some text inside of it.
# echo "test" > test.txt
And after that i use rm to delete folder inside whitch i'm in.
#
Steven Schubiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Did you run it against linecut? If not, would you bother to do so?
No, I didn't have a copy easily available. I'd guess linecut would
run about 50-75% faster than mawk.
> Still, do you think it's worth pursuing linecut implemented in C
> (given the
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's an Awk script that ran twice as fast as the script you used,
> which suggests that scripting is still pretty competitive with C here,
> if you choose a faster implementation. I tested it using Mawk, on a
> text file with 15,699,634 bytes and 514,573
Steven Schubiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> linecut performed a bit more than 3-times faster than the script).
Here's an Awk script that ran twice as fast as the script you used,
which suggests that scripting is still pretty competitive with C here,
if you choose a faster implementation. I te
Since a bit of time passed (a month) after I debated with Jim about the
overall performance of linecut compared to an "equivalent" script in an
interpreted language (perl, python, etc.), I wrote a small perl script
[attached] and ran it and linecut on an older machine against a
few-hundred lines te
"matt smiglarski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The following shows how the year is not rolled back.
>
> # date
> Wed Jan 2 12:12:23 GMT 2008
> # date --date '2 days ago' +'%G-%m-%d %k:%M:%S'
> 2008-12-31 12:12:53
RTFM.
`%G'
year corresponding to the ISO week number. This has the same
The following shows how the year is not rolled back.
# date
Wed Jan 2 12:12:23 GMT 2008
# date --date '2 days ago' +'%G-%m-%d %k:%M:%S'
2008-12-31 12:12:53
However,
# date --date '2 days ago'
Mon Dec 31 12:15:02 GMT 2007
...suggests it is the %G that is the problem. The problem is mentioned
in
10 matches
Mail list logo
