Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote on 27-01-08 01:29:
Hi,
Out of a bit of boredom (and avoiding trying to fix a VHDL problem)
I decided to graph the sizes of a few of the binaries from coreutils,
as packaged by debian over time (I've included fileutils/shellutils).
At:
http://www.treblig.org/pics/
Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote on 27-01-08 01:29:
> Hi,
>
> Out of a bit of boredom (and avoiding trying to fix a VHDL problem)
> I decided to graph the sizes of a few of the binaries from coreutils,
> as packaged by debian over time (I've included fileutils/shellutils).
>
* Alfred M. Szmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Would be interesting to see how normal hard drive sizes have grown in
> that time as well.
Of course hard drive growth is fast; but not everything is as fast;
e.g. seek time and memory latency.
> But these graphs, while quite fun to watch, do not
> What is the drop at 9 epoch? That one looks fun; I am
> guessing it is the move to glibc 2.x?
Yes, it appears to be - the first one is linked against libc.so.5
and an earlier dynamic linker I don't have.
This might put a different spin in the size increase, that it is glibc
> Maybe the better fix would be renaming all the nodes in coreutils.texi to
> comply with this convention?
I think the node names should stay as they are. The convention is
either "Invoking xxx" or "xxx invocation".
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/Manual-Structure-Details.html
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) wrote:
> > Maybe the better fix would be renaming all the nodes in coreutils.texi
> to
> > comply with this convention?
>
> I think the node names should stay as they are. The convention is
> either "Invoking xxx" or "xxx invocation".
> http://www.gnu.org/pr
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 01:34:36PM -0600, Karl Berry wrote:
What this report really says to me is that the dir file was not
correctly created by the Debian (or whatever) installation process.
Oh, without a doubt. The debian install-info routine (IIRC) predates the
gnu install-info, and hasn't
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 09:30:51PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
Yes, that is the root of the problem.
It came down to a dispute about which of two install-info
programs should be installed. I'm amazed that it's lasted
so long (it seems it's been at least two years, now).
I don't think it's a dis
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Another reason to use the more verbose command is to ensure that info
> reliably displays the right node. Even with a proper installation, "info
> pr" doesn't display the desired node (as you probably recall). Instead,
> "info" simply displays the first
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to Jim Meyering on 1/26/2008 3:55 PM:
>
> | + "groups -- foo" no longer generates a spurious error about the
> | + nonexistent group "--".
>
> Huh? That's been fixed for some time now (Sept 2006):
> http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=coreutils.git;
Leo Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> wc is counting with long ints, and the first line of this 50GB file is a
> string
> of \0 whose length appears to be negative when counted with long ints.
> (Details
> below).
>
> I believe that this must be an error in the header file where 'uintmax_t'
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
> > Meanwhile, would it be worth subscribing bug-coreutils to the debian bug
> > feed list? That way, this list would see bugs as they are reported, and
> > others besides Jim will be able to chime in with advice.
>
> I know Bob Proulx is already subscribed
jimm> "info" simply displays the first node it finds with a name matching
jimm> "pr". In my case, it is currently the "PreScript" node of a2ps.info.
What? That makes no sense to me at all. Info doesn't look inside every
info file randomly looking for nodes to match. It has to be in a d
mstone> The debian install-info routine (IIRC) predates the
gnu install-info,
That wasn't my understanding, but I never actually researched it. I was
not aware of any Debian ii at the time that rms wrote GNU ii (I was
maintaining Texinfo by then -- 1996), but then, I probably wouldn't h
Philip Rowlands wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> >Consulting the tables with 'zdump -v US/Eastern | grep 2008' shows
> >that indeed "Tue Jan 14 08:25:26 EDT 2008" is not a valid date in that
> >timezone. It should be flagged with an error regardless of local
> >timezone setting.
>
> Are we in the
On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 06:51:54PM -0600, Karl Berry wrote:
mstone> The debian install-info routine (IIRC) predates the
gnu install-info,
That wasn't my understanding, but I never actually researched it. I was
not aware of any Debian ii at the time that rms wrote GNU ii (I was
maintaini
16 matches
Mail list logo
