bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s

2010-11-08 Thread Jim Meyering
Paul Eggert wrote: > On 11/08/10 08:02, Eric Blake wrote: >> In fact, since Paul originally wrote utimecmp.c, I'm surprised that you >> rewrote the coreutils hash table from scratch rather than trying to >> reuse the code. > > I had vaguely remembered the issue, but I had forgotten where I put > t

bug#7355: coreutils df on OSX reports wrong sizes for large filesystems

2010-11-08 Thread Tim Spriggs
2010/11/8 Pádraig Brady : > On 08/11/10 23:38, Tim Spriggs wrote: >> 2010/11/8 Pádraig Brady : >>> On 08/11/10 20:37, Tim Spriggs wrote: Hello,   I am running gentoo-prefix on OSX which builds coreutils. When I compare the output of the system df to the standard GNU df I get: >>

bug#7355: coreutils df on OSX reports wrong sizes for large filesystems

2010-11-08 Thread Tim Spriggs
2010/11/8 Pádraig Brady : > Also could you give your exact version of OSX. > I had a quick google for statfs64 and OSX and > it seems that _DARWIN_USE_64_BIT_INODE needs to > be defined (and your OSX version to support symbol variants). > Could you try adding that as the first line in df.c? I.E. >

bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s

2010-11-08 Thread Paul Eggert
On 11/08/10 08:02, Eric Blake wrote: > In fact, since Paul originally wrote utimecmp.c, I'm surprised that you > rewrote the coreutils hash table from scratch rather than trying to > reuse the code. I had vaguely remembered the issue, but I had forgotten where I put that code. utimecmp.c modifies

bug#7355: coreutils df on OSX reports wrong sizes for large filesystems

2010-11-08 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 08/11/10 23:38, Tim Spriggs wrote: > 2010/11/8 Pádraig Brady : >> On 08/11/10 20:37, Tim Spriggs wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I am running gentoo-prefix on OSX which builds coreutils. When I >>> compare the output of the system df to the standard GNU df I get: >>> >>> >>> $ /bin/df -h /data/hiris

bug#7355: coreutils df on OSX reports wrong sizes for large filesystems

2010-11-08 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 08/11/10 20:37, Tim Spriggs wrote: > Hello, > > I am running gentoo-prefix on OSX which builds coreutils. When I > compare the output of the system df to the standard GNU df I get: > > > $ /bin/df -h /data/hirise06 > Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on > hiserve

bug#7355: coreutils df on OSX reports wrong sizes for large filesystems

2010-11-08 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 08/11/10 23:13, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 08/11/10 20:37, Tim Spriggs wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I am running gentoo-prefix on OSX which builds coreutils. When I >> compare the output of the system df to the standard GNU df I get: >> >> >> $ /bin/df -h /data/hirise06 >> Filesystem Si

bug#7355: coreutils df on OSX reports wrong sizes for large filesystems

2010-11-08 Thread Tim Spriggs
2010/11/8 Pádraig Brady : > On 08/11/10 20:37, Tim Spriggs wrote: >> Hello, >> >>   I am running gentoo-prefix on OSX which builds coreutils. When I >> compare the output of the system df to the standard GNU df I get: >> >> >> $ /bin/df -h /data/hirise06 >> Filesystem               Size   Used  Ava

bug#7353: hostid returns 00000000

2010-11-08 Thread Eric Blake
forcemerge 7354 7353 tags 7353 notabug close 7353 thanks On 11/08/2010 02:15 PM, FINKEL, PAUL D (ATTSI) wrote: > Thanks, figured it out! In which case, I'm merging your two emails into a single bug report and closing it as not a bug. > > Paul Finkel > AT&T CSO > 732_420_3105 > > >> __

bug#7355: coreutils df on OSX reports wrong sizes for large filesystems

2010-11-08 Thread Tim Spriggs
Hello, I am running gentoo-prefix on OSX which builds coreutils. When I compare the output of the system df to the standard GNU df I get: $ /bin/df -h /data/hirise06 Filesystem Size Used Avail Capacity Mounted on hiserve2:/vol/hirise06 7.9Ti 430Gi 7.5Ti 6%/data/hir

bug#7354: hostid returns 00000000

2010-11-08 Thread FINKEL, PAUL D (ATTSI)
These are both newly created VM servers running Red Hat 5_3 64 bit output from `uname -a`: Linux vmdbxx01 2.6.18-128.el5 #1 SMP Wed Dec 17 11:41:38 EST 2008 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux Paul Finkel AT&T CSO 732_420_3105

bug#7353: hostid returns 00000000

2010-11-08 Thread FINKEL, PAUL D (ATTSI)
Thanks, figured it out! Paul Finkel AT&T CSO 732_420_3105 > _ > From: FINKEL, PAUL D (ATTSI) > Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 3:57 PM > To: 'bug-coreutils@gnu.org' > Subject: hostid returns > > These are both newly created

bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s

2010-11-08 Thread Eric Blake
On 11/08/2010 08:22 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 08/11/10 14:33, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Looks like I got very lucky here and hit a number of nanoseconds >> that happened to be a multiple of 100,000: >> >> $ for i in $(seq 1000); do touch -d '1970-01-01 18:43:33.50' 2; >> t=$(stat -c "

bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s

2010-11-08 Thread Jim Meyering
Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 06/11/10 14:20, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> On 06/11/10 02:54, Paul Eggert wrote: >>> On 11/04/2010 11:34 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: Pádraig Brady wrote: > I still slightly prefer just using %.X as > it's backwards compat with older coreutils (excluding 8.6). >

bug#7325: new test failure due to non-portability of printf formats like %05.3s

2010-11-08 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 06/11/10 14:20, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 06/11/10 02:54, Paul Eggert wrote: >> On 11/04/2010 11:34 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> Pádraig Brady wrote: I still slightly prefer just using %.X as it's backwards compat with older coreutils (excluding 8.6). >>> >>> So do I. >> >> I built tha

bug#7320: 'group' command gives wrong/extra group

2010-11-08 Thread James Youngman
Does the same thing happen with "id -G"?