Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> I'm not able to compile/test/push at the moment
>> due to gnulib submodule weirdness.
>
> I was playing around with submodules today and thought
> I had messed up something. But I think the issue is
> that you synced to a private gnulib version?
Hi P
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> I found another bug I think.
>
> Hopefully the attached is OK, but
> I'm not able to compile/test/push at the moment
> due to gnulib submodule weirdness.
Thanks!
Pushed.
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http:/
I found another bug I think.
Hopefully the attached is OK, but
I'm not able to compile/test/push at the moment
due to gnulib submodule weirdness.
cheers,
Pádraig.
>From 45e2e5f26d4d7641c3ef2bfc3e47aab5bc93b8fe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?utf-8?q?P=C3=A1draig=20Brady?=
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009
Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> Jim Meyering writes:
>
>> A couple of points:
>>
>> Please move these declarations down into the scope where they are used.
>>
>>
>> It would be better not to perform the kill test after every
>> single select call when actively tailing files.
>> Considering how --pid i
Jim Meyering writes:
> A couple of points:
>
> Please move these declarations down into the scope where they are used.
>
>
> It would be better not to perform the kill test after every
> single select call when actively tailing files.
> Considering how --pid is documented (in the texinfo manual),
Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
> Jim Meyering writes:
>> Hi Giuseppe,
>>
>> I've realized that there is a good way to remove the ugly exclusion
>> that currently disables inotify-based tail -f when --pid is specified.
>> Instead of the existing while-1-loop around code that reads the inotify
>> FD, we c
Hi Jim,
Jim Meyering writes:
> Hi Giuseppe,
>
> I've realized that there is a good way to remove the ugly exclusion
> that currently disables inotify-based tail -f when --pid is specified.
> Instead of the existing while-1-loop around code that reads the inotify
> FD, we can use a loop that poll
