On 21/04/10 21:33, Jim Meyering wrote:
> I think we're ready for coreutils-8.5.
> In preparation, here's a snapshot. Please beat it up.
Platform PassedFailedSkipped
Fedora 11 x86 372 0 47
gnulib204
Gilles Espinasse wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jim Meyering"
> Subject: bug#5999: new snapshot available: coreutils-8.4.100-81926
>
>> I think we're ready for coreutils-8.5.
>> In preparation, here's a snapshot. Please beat it up.
&g
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Meyering"
To: <5...@debbugs.gnu.org>
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:33 PM
Subject: bug#5999: new snapshot available: coreutils-8.4.100-81926
> I think we're ready for coreutils-8.5.
> In preparation, here's a snap
I think we're ready for coreutils-8.5.
In preparation, here's a snapshot. Please beat it up.
coreutils snapshot: (.gz files are here, too)
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz 4.4 MB
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz.sig
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-8.4.100-81926.tar
Eric Blake wrote:
> Jim Meyering meyering.net> writes:
>
>> I'm planning to release coreutils-8.4 tomorrow.
>> It will be a build-fix-only release, along with a minor bug fix
>> for the relatively new command, nproc.
>
> 3 failures on Solaris 8, but probably not worth worrying about since that
> p
Jim Meyering meyering.net> writes:
> I'm planning to release coreutils-8.4 tomorrow.
> It will be a build-fix-only release, along with a minor bug fix
> for the relatively new command, nproc.
3 failures on Solaris 8, but probably not worth worrying about since that
platform is so old:
FAIL: t
On 12/01/10 12:55, Jim Meyering wrote:
I'm planning to release coreutils-8.4 tomorrow.
It will be a build-fix-only release, along with a minor bug fix
for the relatively new command, nproc.
make check passes on solaris 10 and Fedora 8 (glibc-2.7)
Hi Jim,
Jim Meyering writes:
> Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> Surprisingly “make dist” has been failing on Hydra for some time[*]:
>>
>> gcc -std=gnu99 -I. -g -O2 -c -o exclude.o exclude.c
>> In file included from mbuiter.h:106,
>> from exclude.c:38:
>> mbchar.h: In function 'm
I'm planning to release coreutils-8.4 tomorrow.
It will be a build-fix-only release, along with a minor bug fix
for the relatively new command, nproc. I've opted to take
all of the many changes from gnulib up to this morning, because
they seem safe. A few are required to fix actual problems. Not
On 07/01/10 10:03, Jim Meyering wrote:
Here's another snapshot. Final, I hope.
Unless something else comes up, I will
release coreutils-8.3 in around 10 hours.
Passed Skipped Failed
\-
Fedora core 5 x86 | 36
Here's another snapshot. Final, I hope.
Unless something else comes up, I will
release coreutils-8.3 in around 10 hours.
In the last two days, there have been two bug fixes. The one in pr is
minor, but the one that was fixed via a change in gnulib's utimens.c
would have caused trouble when coreu
Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Surprisingly “make dist” has been failing on Hydra for some time[*]:
>
> gcc -std=gnu99 -I. -g -O2 -c -o exclude.o exclude.c
> In file included from mbuiter.h:106,
> from exclude.c:38:
> mbchar.h: In function 'mb_width_aux':
> mbchar.h:241: warning: i
Philip Rowlands wrote:
>> tail -F (inotify-enabled) would abort when a tailed file is repeated
>> renamed-aside and then recreated.
>> [bug introduced in coreutils-7.5]
>
> Should that be "repeatedly"?
Yes. Thanks!
>From bbdc929602fb1a3886fced0459ba405151549739 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From:
Hello,
Surprisingly “make dist” has been failing on Hydra for some time[*]:
--8<---cut here---start->8---
gcc -std=gnu99 -I. -g -O2 -c -o exclude.o exclude.c
In file included from mbuiter.h:106,
from exclude.c:38:
mbchar.h: In function 'm
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010, Jim Meyering wrote:
Here's the NEWS, then shortlogs for coreutils and gnulib:
** Bug fixes
[snip]
tail -F (inotify-enabled) would abort when a tailed file is repeated
renamed-aside and then recreated.
[bug introduced in coreutils-7.5]
Should that be "repeatedly"?
C
I'm aiming for a release of coreutils-8.3 tomorrow or Thursday,
so if you can find time to build this and run tests before then,
please do.
coreutils snapshot: (.gz files are here, too)
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz 4.3 MB
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz.sig
http
Hi,
Passed Skipped Failed
\-
Linux From Scratch x86 | 362 49 0
Only one minor observation here; 'make RUN_EXPENSIVE_TESTS=yes check'
appears to result in a full rebuild of the sour
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> gnulib
>Passed Skipped Failed Passed
> \---
> Fedora core 5 x86 | 363 48 0
> Fedora
Passed Skipped Failed
\-
Fedora core 5 x86 | 363 48 0
Fedora 11 x86 | 362 49 0
Solaris 10 x86| 342 69 0
FreeBSD 6 x86 | 338
This should be the final snapshot before coreutils-8.2,
due tomorrow or Thursday.
coreutils snapshot: (.gz files are here, too)
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz 4.3 MB
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz.sig
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-8.1.30-0f8bb.tar.xz
There ar
Matthew Burgess wrote:
> I get a 403 Forbidden error trying to download the latest ss tarballs
> from both meyering.net & people.redhat.com.
Hi Matthew.
Rats. Thanks for the heads up.
I've just fixed the permissions on both.
That was fall-out from my switching a shell to a umask of 077.
My uploa
Hi Jim,
I get a 403 Forbidden error trying to download the latest ss tarballs
from both meyering.net & people.redhat.com.
What timescales did you envisage for the 8.2 release? I'll try to run
through an LFS build with it prior to the release so I can report any
issues I see *before* one of
We're ready for a bug-fix coreutils-8.2 release, so if you
can spot any problems in this snapshot please let us know asap.
coreutils snapshot: (.gz files are here, too)
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz 4.3 MB
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz.sig
http://meyering.net/c
This fixes a test failure on *BSD and introduces a new (and probably just
as insignificant) environment-related gnulib test failure on Solaris 10.
Note that these failures are often not an issue for coreutils -- at
least the just-fixed one was not. Rather they expose corner-case flaws
in vendor-pr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 11/9/2009 6:56 AM:
>> FeeBSD 6 failures
>> misc/env
>> + env -u a=b true
>> + fail=1
>
> Hmm, I'll take a look at that. Sounds like we need rpl_unsetenv to reject
> invalid arguments.
gnulib should work around th
I expect this to be very similar to coreutils-8.1.
Please give it a spin and report back that you did.
This release inherits many portability improvements
from gnulib (thanks mostly to Eric Blake), so if you can
test on *BSD or Solaris, you should see fewer failed tests.
The main change in coreuti
Gilles Espinasse wrote:
>> ...
>> >> > Insecure directory in $ENV{PATH} while running with -T switch at -
...
>> >> Is some directory in your $PATH group- or world-writable?
It is insecure also if a parent of one of those directories is
group- or world-writable.
>> > should not
>> > find `echo "$
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Meyering"
To: "Gilles Espinasse"
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: new snapshot available: coreutils-8.0.108-3aff3
> Gilles Espinasse wrote:
> ...
> >> > Insecure directory in $ENV{PATH}
Gilles Espinasse wrote:
...
>> > Insecure directory in $ENV{PATH} while running with -T switch at - line
> 73.
>>
>> Is some directory in your $PATH group- or world-writable?
>
> should not
> find `echo "$PATH" | sed 's/:/ /g'` -maxdepth 0 -ls
> 13312754 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 409
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Meyering"
To: "Gilles Espinasse"
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, November 14, 2009 3:51 PM
Subject: Re: new snapshot available: coreutils-8.0.108-3aff3
> Gilles Espinasse wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "
Gilles Espinasse wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Jim Meyering"
> To:
> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:04 PM
> Subject: new snapshot available: coreutils-8.0.108-3aff3
>
>
>> We're expecting to release coreutils-8.1 soon (like b
- Original Message -
From: "Jim Meyering"
To:
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 12:04 PM
Subject: new snapshot available: coreutils-8.0.108-3aff3
> We're expecting to release coreutils-8.1 soon (like before the end
> of the week), so here's a snapshot of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Pádraig Brady on 11/9/2009 6:45 AM:
>Passed Skipped Failed
> \-
> Fedora core 5 x86 | 363 47 0
> Fedora 11 x86 | 363
Pádraig Brady wrote:
>Passed Skipped Failed
> \-
> Fedora core 5 x86 | 363 47 0
> Fedora 11 x86 | 363 47 0
> Solaris 10 x86| 342 68 0
> F
Passed Skipped Failed
\-
Fedora core 5 x86 | 363 47 0
Fedora 11 x86 | 363 47 0
Solaris 10 x86| 342 68 0
FreeBSD 6 x86 | 336
We're expecting to release coreutils-8.1 soon (like before the end
of the week), so here's a snapshot of the latest. This includes
many improvements in gnulib, too.
For the latest NEWS (it's getting long), see this:
http://git.sv.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/plain/NEWS
coreutils snapshot:
There are still at least two known test failures on FreeBSD 6.1,
but this snapshot should compile on many more non-GNU/Linux systems
than coreutils-8.0 did.
coreutils snapshot:
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.gz 9.9 MB
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz 4.1 MB
http:
Eric Blake byu.net> writes:
> The patch copies from areadlink.c, as well as link_follow earlier in
> linkat.c, to create two new fd-relative helpers. For now, I didn't see
> any reason to expose them, but areadlinkat may someday be worth making
> into a full-blown module.
Further looking shows
Pádraig Brady writes:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Meyering wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
> This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
> that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
March 2
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 10/06/2009 11:05 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> Also a minor nit in s/Linux/Gnu\/Linux/
>
> Definitely not when it's talking explicitly of a kernel version?
Right, it could be "GNU/Linux" or "Linux kernels? (.*)?"
cheers,
Pádraig.
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>
>> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> Eric Blake wrote:
According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
>>> March 2006?
>> The failure is probabl
On 10/06/2009 11:05 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
Also a minor nit in s/Linux/Gnu\/Linux/
Definitely not when it's talking explicitly of a kernel version?
Paolo
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Eric Blake wrote:
>>> According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
>>> This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
>>> that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
>> March 2006?
> The failure is probably a function of the kernel.
>>>
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
>> This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
>> that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
> March 2006?
The failure is probably a function of the kernel.
Which is it?
>>> In summary
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
> This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
> that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
March 2006?
>>> The failure is probably a function of the kernel.
>>> Which is it?
>>
>> In summary this is what fails:
>>
>>
Eric Blake wrote:
> Pádraig Brady draigBrady.com> writes:
>
>> ln: creating hard link `hardlink' => `symlink': Invalid argument
>>
>> `man linkat` says that AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW is only supported since 2.6.18
>> and my FC5 system is 2.6.17
>
> Bingo. For FC5, I need to implement rpl_linkat in gnulib
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
>>> March 2006?
>> The failure is probably a function of the kernel.
>> Which is it?
>
> In summary this
Pádraig Brady draigBrady.com> writes:
> __xstat64(3, "symlink",
0xbfee893c) = 0
> linkat(-100, 0xbfee8d3e, -100, 0xbfee8d46,
1024)= -1
> stat64("symlink", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0664, st_size=0, ...}) = 0
> connect(-100, {sa
Pádraig Brady draigBrady.com> writes:
> ln: creating hard link `hardlink' => `symlink': Invalid argument
>
> `man linkat` says that AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW is only supported since 2.6.18
> and my FC5 system is 2.6.17
Bingo. For FC5, I need to implement rpl_linkat in gnulib, which mimics the
link_fo
Eric Blake wrote:
> Pádraig Brady draigBrady.com> writes:
>
>> FC5 test failure:
>> ln/hard-to-sym
>> ln -P -L symlink3 hard-to-a
>> ln: creating hard link `hard-to-a' => `symlink3': Invalid argument
>
> I'd be interested in the strace of
> ln -P -L symlink3 hard-to-a
attached
>
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>
>> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> Pádraig Brady wrote:
Passed Skipped Failed
\-
Fedora core 5 x86 | 352 43 1
Fedora 11 x86 |
Pádraig Brady draigBrady.com> writes:
> FC5 test failure:
> ln/hard-to-sym
> ln -P -L symlink3 hard-to-a
> ln: creating hard link `hard-to-a' => `symlink3': Invalid argument
I'd be interested in the strace of
ln -P -L symlink3 hard-to-a
as well as 'grep LINK_FOLLOWS config.log'. I
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>>Passed Skipped Failed
>>> \-
>>> Fedora core 5 x86 | 352 43 1
>>> Fedora 11 x86 | 351 45 0
>>>
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>Passed Skipped Failed
>> \-
>> Fedora core 5 x86 | 352 43 1
>> Fedora 11 x86 | 351 45 0
>> Solaris 10 x86| 334
Pádraig Brady wrote:
>Passed Skipped Failed
> \-
> Fedora core 5 x86 | 352 43 1
> Fedora 11 x86 | 351 45 0
> Solaris 10 x86| 334 62 0
> S
Passed Skipped Failed
\-
Fedora core 5 x86 | 352 43 1
Fedora 11 x86 | 351 45 0
Solaris 10 x86| 334 62 0
Solaris 9 x86| 331
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 10/4/2009 8:29 AM:
>> If you feel like addressing that right away, that would
>> be great. Otherwise, I think it's safe to say that no one
>> will complain if it is deferred until 8.1.
>
> At this point, it's enough of a co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Jim Meyering on 10/4/2009 2:10 AM:
>> readlink -f link/
>>
>> succeeds, with the claim that 'mkdir link/' will also succeed, we should
>> make sure of that.
>
> Yes, adding a test would be good.
> Such a test would be expected to fail on
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Jim Meyering on 10/3/2009 2:30 AM:
>> There have been *many* changes in gnulib since the previous snapshot,
>> and the changes in coreutils are non-negligible, so please give
>> this a try. I'd like to make the beta release on Monday.
>> I'll probably call it coreu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Jim Meyering on 10/3/2009 2:30 AM:
> There have been *many* changes in gnulib since the previous snapshot,
> and the changes in coreutils are non-negligible, so please give
> this a try. I'd like to make the beta release on Monday.
> I'll
There have been *many* changes in gnulib since the previous snapshot,
and the changes in coreutils are non-negligible, so please give
this a try. I'd like to make the beta release on Monday.
I'll probably call it coreutils-8.0.
coreutils snapshot:
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.gz
Here's a snapshot of the latest:
coreutils snapshot:
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.gz 9.7 MB
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz 4.1 MB
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.gz.sig
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz.sig
aka
http://meyering.net/cu/coreut
This includes the new, fts-using version of rm:
coreutils snapshot:
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.gz (9.6 MB)
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz (4.0 MB)
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.gz.sig
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz.sig
aka
http://mey
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> rerunning on local file systems:
>>
>>Passed Skipped Failed
>> \-
>> Fedora core 5 x86 | 348 42 0
>> Fedora 11 x86 | 343 47
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> rerunning on local file systems:
>
>Passed Skipped Failed
> \-
> Fedora core 5 x86 | 348 42 0
> Fedora 11 x86 | 343 47 0
> Solaris 10 x86|
rerunning on local file systems:
Passed Skipped Failed
\-
Fedora core 5 x86 | 348 42 0
Fedora 11 x86 | 343 47 0
Solaris 10 x86| 328 62 0
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Here's another snapshot, prior to coreutils-7.6.
> We've inherited quite a few changes from gnulib,
> including one to fix the Solaris build failure.
Passed Skipped Failed
\-
Fedora core 5 x86 |
Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2009-09-08 13:55 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Here's another snapshot, prior to coreutils-7.6.
>
> All tests passed on Debian sid i386, including the (very) expensive and
> root checks. :-)
Nice. Thanks!
On 2009-09-08 13:55 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Here's another snapshot, prior to coreutils-7.6.
All tests passed on Debian sid i386, including the (very) expensive and
root checks. :-)
Cheers,
Sven
Here's another snapshot, prior to coreutils-7.6.
We've inherited quite a few changes from gnulib,
including one to fix the Solaris build failure.
coreutils snapshot:
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.gz 9.6 MB
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz 4.0 MB
http://meyering.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Pádraig Brady on 9/7/2009 6:32 PM:
>>> "fstatat.c", line 39: undefined symbol: AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW
>> Hmm. That should be taken care of by the gnulib replacement.
>> Are we missing a #include? Can you post the full failure?
>
> gnulib 5
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Pádraig Brady on 9/7/2009 10:22 AM:
>> Solaris 9 x86 build failed with:
>> "fstatat.c", line 39: undefined symbol: AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW
>
> Hmm. That should be taken care of by the gnulib replacement.
> Are we missing a #include? Can you post the full failure?
gn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Jim Meyering on 9/7/2009 11:41 AM:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>>> Solaris 10 failures:
>>> tail-2/flush-initial (patch attached)
>> Hmm. We should reword the NEWS entry (right now, it states that the
>> failure was rare because stdbuf was not a
Eric Blake wrote:
>> Solaris 10 failures:
>> tail-2/flush-initial (patch attached)
>
> Hmm. We should reword the NEWS entry (right now, it states that the
> failure was rare because stdbuf was not always used; but your analysis of
> this failure proves that it can indeed be more common).
Do you
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Pádraig Brady on 9/7/2009 10:22 AM:
>>
>> Solaris 9 x86 build failed with:
>> "fstatat.c", line 39: undefined symbol: AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW
>
> Hmm. That should be taken care of by the gnulib replacement.
> Are we missing a #include? Can you post the full failure?
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> There have been disproportionately many bug fixes since coreutils-7.5.
>> It's an interesting mix of fixes for recent regressions and for a few older
>> bugs.
>
>Passed Skipped Failed
> \---
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Pádraig Brady on 9/7/2009 10:22 AM:
>
> Solaris 9 x86 build failed with:
> "fstatat.c", line 39: undefined symbol: AT_SYMLINK_NOFOLLOW
Hmm. That should be taken care of by the gnulib replacement.
Are we missing a #include? Can you post
Jim Meyering wrote:
> There have been disproportionately many bug fixes since coreutils-7.5.
> It's an interesting mix of fixes for recent regressions and for a few older
> bugs.
Passed Skipped Failed
\-
Fedora core
Erik Auerswald wrote:
...
>> http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-7.5.65-61cc6.tar.gz
>> http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-7.5.65-61cc6.tar.xz
Hi Erik,
> I've run the non-root checks without failures on my debian/sid x86 (32 bit)
> system.
Good to know. That's one I hadn't tested.
Thanks!
Hi Jim,
On Mon, Sep 07, 2009 at 11:09:21AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> There have been disproportionately many bug fixes since coreutils-7.5.
> It's an interesting mix of fixes for recent regressions and for a few older
> bugs.
>
> coreutils snapshot:
> http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> According to Jim Meyering on 9/7/2009 3:09 AM:
>>> ls -i now prints consistent inode numbers also for mount points.
>>> This makes ls -i DIR less efficient on systems with dysfunctional readdir,
>>> because ls must stat every file in order to obtain
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Andreas Schwab on 9/7/2009 5:17 AM:
> Eric Blake writes:
>
>> In other words, are we guaranteed that mount points can only occur
>> atop directories, and that we can avoid the stat() for regular files?
>
> You can also (bind-)mount regu
Eric Blake writes:
> In other words, are we guaranteed that mount points can only occur
> atop directories, and that we can avoid the stat() for regular files?
You can also (bind-)mount regular files.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Jim Meyering on 9/7/2009 3:09 AM:
>> ls -i now prints consistent inode numbers also for mount points.
>> This makes ls -i DIR less efficient on systems with dysfunctional readdir,
>> because ls must stat every file in order to obtain a guaranteed-valid
>> in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Jim Meyering on 9/7/2009 3:09 AM:
> ls -i now prints consistent inode numbers also for mount points.
> This makes ls -i DIR less efficient on systems with dysfunctional readdir,
> because ls must stat every file in order to obtain a
There have been disproportionately many bug fixes since coreutils-7.5.
It's an interesting mix of fixes for recent regressions and for a few older
bugs.
coreutils snapshot:
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.gz
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> all non-root tests have successfully now, but one of the root-tests
> failed:
>
> ===
>GNU coreutils 7.4.127-d2510: tests/test-suite.log
> ===
>
> 1 of 1 test faile
all non-root tests have successfully now, but one of the root-tests
failed:
===
GNU coreutils 7.4.127-d2510: tests/test-suite.log
===
1 of 1 test failed.
.. contents:: :depth: 2
FAIL
Jim Meyering wrote:
> I suspect this patch works around your compiler's
> inadequate "bool" support:
>
> diff --git a/src/install.c b/src/install.c
> index 73b3981..19efb1d 100644
> --- a/src/install.c
> +++ b/src/install.c
> @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static bool
> extra_mode (mode_t input)
> {
>c
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote
>> I'm beginning to think there's a fundamental problem with your system.
>> Here's the comparable part of truss output on a working Solaris 10
> system:
> ...
>> Remember, you did not compile with gcc.
>>
>> Unless someone can suggest an alternative ex
Jim Meyering wrote
> I'm beginning to think there's a fundamental problem with your system.
> Here's the comparable part of truss output on a working Solaris 10
system:
...
> Remember, you did not compile with gcc.
>
> Unless someone can suggest an alternative explanation,
> I'll have to assume th
On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 22:28 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Have any of you found anything worth addressing for 7.5?
> Otherwise, I'll make the release tomorrow.
make check and check-root passed. Ubuntu 9.10.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Have any of you found anything worth addressing for 7.5?
Otherwise, I'll make the release tomorrow.
Here's a final snapshot:
coreutils snapshot:
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.gz 9.5 MB
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.xz 4.0 MB
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> The *second* time that command is run, it appears to print nothing.
>>
>> Do this in src/:
>>
>> ./touch a b; mode3=2755
>> ./ginstall -Cv -m$mode3 a b
>> ./ginstall -Cv -m$mode3 a b
>
> Bingo!
>
>> If the second invocation of ginstal
Jim Meyering wrote:
> The *second* time that command is run, it appears to print nothing.
>
> Do this in src/:
>
> ./touch a b; mode3=2755
> ./ginstall -Cv -m$mode3 a b
> ./ginstall -Cv -m$mode3 a b
Bingo!
> If the second invocation of ginstall doesn't print anything,
> that indica
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Please run this command from your build directory
>>
>> cd src && { touch a b; mode3=2755; ./ginstall -Cv -m$mode3 a b }
>>
>> and tell us what it prints.
>
> somehow, my shell (/bin/ksh) doesn't like the { ... } syntax here:
>
> $ cd src && {
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Long-term, best for you would be to install GNU diffutils.
done:
===
GNU coreutils 7.4.127-d2510: tests/test-suite.log
===
1 of 1 test failed.
.. contents:: :d
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Please run this command from your build directory
>>
>> cd src && { touch a b; mode3=2755; ./ginstall -Cv -m$mode3 a b }
>>
>> and tell us what it prints.
>
> somehow, my shell (/bin/ksh) doesn't like the { ... } syntax here:
>
> $ cd src && {
On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
somehow, my shell (/bin/ksh) doesn't like the { ... } syntax here:
$ cd src && { touch a b; mode3=2755; ./ginstall -Cv -m$mode3 a b }
>
it waits for the command to be continued ... I can't see why
That's not quite valid (POSIX) sh, which requir
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Please run this command from your build directory
>>
>> cd src && { touch a b; mode3=2755; ./ginstall -Cv -m$mode3 a b }
>>
>> and tell us what it prints.
>
> somehow, my shell (/bin/ksh) doesn't like the { ... } syntax here:
>
> $ cd src && {
1 - 100 of 270 matches
Mail list logo
