Hi,
Is it a bug or a feature that "cp -u" reports an error when a file is
being
copied over itself -- supposedly such a file is not subject for an
update (as it is not newer than the destination, which is itself),
so it would have seemed than cp should not care of such a file, but
it does still pr
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Did you run it as recommended in README, i.e.,
>> after building as non-root, run this:
>>
>> sudo env PATH="$PATH" NON_ROOT_USERNAME=$USER make -k check-root
>
> no.
> I built it as non-root, ran `make check` as non-root, and then
> - because
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> It fails on this test:
> # option -C ignored if any non-permission mode should be set
> ginstall -Cv -m$mode3 a b > out || fail=1
> compare out out_installed_second || fail=1
> ginstall -Cv -m$mode3 a b > out || fail=1
> compare out out_insta
Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> thanks for the comments. This is the cleaned version of the patch.
I've made small log adjustments: s/favour/favor/
and corrected the diagnostic to mention nl's new and old option
names, rather than those of install.
Considering the small impact, it seems safe to inclu
Hello,
Jim Meyering writes:
>> + nl --page-increment: deprecated in favour of --line-increment, the new
>> option
>> + maintains the previous semantic and the same short option, -i.
>
> s/semantic/semantics/
>
> ...
> Please don't use "I".
> Use something like PAGE_INCREMENT_OPTION_DEPRECATE
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Did you run it as recommended in README, i.e.,
> after building as non-root, run this:
>
> sudo env PATH="$PATH" NON_ROOT_USERNAME=$USER make -k check-root
no.
I built it as non-root, ran `make check` as non-root, and then
- because I saw that a few tests can only be run
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
>> FAIL: misc/stdbuf (exit: 1)
> That one's easy.
> My fault for using skip_test_ before it's defined:
It works:
./misc/stdbuf: skipping test: stdbuf not built
SKIP: misc/stdbuf
>> FAIL: install/install-C (exit: 1)
>> =
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Here's a tarball with those two not-yet-pushed changes:
>
> Now, `make check` works ... mostly.
>
> I attached the 2 logfiles - 1 run as root, 1 run as non-root.
> It seems that the test-suite sometimes relies on GNU coreutils
> like rm or mv in th
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Here's a tarball with those two not-yet-pushed changes:
>
> Now, `make check` works ... mostly.
>
> I attached the 2 logfiles - 1 run as root, 1 run as non-root.
> It seems that the test-suite sometimes relies on GNU coreutils
> like rm or mv in the
Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> --page-increment seems the wrong name for this option, --line-increment
> is clearer. what do you think of this change?
Good catch.
Thanks for the patch.
I wonder if anyone has ever used that option ;-)
...
> diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS
...
> +** Deprecated options
> +
>
C de-Avillez wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 22:26 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Pádraig fixed a few bugs (thanks!), and I've pulled in
>> the latest from gnulib, so here's another snapshot.
>> Thanks to everyone who has been helping.
>
> No issues on Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala
Thanks for the feedbac
On Mon, 2009-08-17 at 22:26 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig fixed a few bugs (thanks!), and I've pulled in
> the latest from gnulib, so here's another snapshot.
> Thanks to everyone who has been helping.
No issues on Ubuntu 9.10 Karmic Koala
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally s
All tests pass on FC5 and F11.
cheers,
Pádraig.
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Here's a tarball with those two not-yet-pushed changes:
Now, `make check` works ... mostly.
I attached the 2 logfiles - 1 run as root, 1 run as non-root.
It seems that the test-suite sometimes relies on GNU coreutils
like rm or mv in the path instead of the fresh compiled on
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Here's a better patch.
>> (this also renames check-AUTHORS to sc_check-AUTHORS)
>
> this doesn't work - stdbuf is still tried to be built.
> I double-checked with a fresh `tar zxf ...` and the patches
> to the 3 files.
>
> I attached the (solaris) d
Bob:
Thanks very much for taking the time and explaining in full detail!
I appreciate it(tho didnt expect it)!
:-)
Best Regards;
Mehdi B.
> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:54:59 -0600
> From: b...@proulx.com
> To: mehd...@hotmail.com
> CC: bug-coreutils@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: chroot diff. erro
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Here's a better patch.
> (this also renames check-AUTHORS to sc_check-AUTHORS)
this doesn't work - stdbuf is still tried to be built.
I double-checked with a fresh `tar zxf ...` and the patches
to the 3 files.
I attached the (solaris) diff of the files and the
output of `mak
Thanks Kamil, yes, CHAR_MAX + 1 looks like a better choice.
Are there other comments?
Giuseppe
Kamil Dudka writes:
> Hello Giuseppe,
>
> On Tue August 18 2009 12:47:06 Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
>> diff --git a/src/nl.c b/src/nl.c
>> index 2deb314..ea7ebe6 100644
>> --- a/src/nl.c
>> +++ b/src/
Hello Giuseppe,
On Tue August 18 2009 12:47:06 Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> diff --git a/src/nl.c b/src/nl.c
> index 2deb314..ea7ebe6 100644
> --- a/src/nl.c
> +++ b/src/nl.c
> @@ -150,7 +150,9 @@ static struct option const longopts[] =
>{"body-numbering", required_argument, NULL, 'b'},
>{"f
Hello,
--page-increment seems the wrong name for this option, --line-increment
is clearer. what do you think of this change?
Cheers,
Giuseppe
>From e71bee2c6731fe65c07744ac95e1e4058eea773c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Giuseppe Scrivano
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:22:37 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] nl
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> coreutils began the switch to C99 years ago, and that sort of
>> initialization is a new addition. We did debate whether to use the
>> new-to-coreutils construct. However, if that's the only bit of code
>> that causes build failure for this compi
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> coreutils began the switch to C99 years ago, and that sort of
>> initialization is a new addition. We did debate whether to use the
>> new-to-coreutils construct. However, if that's the only bit of code
>> that causes build failure for this compil
Jim Meyering wrote:
> coreutils began the switch to C99 years ago, and that sort of
> initialization is a new addition. We did debate whether to use the
> new-to-coreutils construct. However, if that's the only bit of code
> that causes build failure for this compiler, I may accommodate it with
>
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> make failed for me:
> - non-root
>
> - Solaris 10:
> $ uname -a
> SunOS avanti 5.10 Generic_127111-08 sun4u sparc SUNW,SPARC-Enterprise
>
> - Compiler:
> $ cc -V
> cc: Forte Developer 7 C 5.4 2002/03/09
>
> - ./configure --prefix=/user/ecs2 --disable-nls
>
> - Mak
make failed for me:
- non-root
- Solaris 10:
$ uname -a
SunOS avanti 5.10 Generic_127111-08 sun4u sparc SUNW,SPARC-Enterprise
- Compiler:
$ cc -V
cc: Forte Developer 7 C 5.4 2002/03/09
- ./configure --prefix=/user/ecs2 --disable-nls
- Make output snippet:
CC sort.o
"sort.c", line
25 matches
Mail list logo
