Hi, (retry sending without multipart/alternative)
Version: seq (GNU coreutils) 9.6; OS: Archlinux, x86-64
When adding `-w` parameter, we want numbers to be padded with leading
0s, e.g. this looks correct:
$ seq -w 0 5 10
00
05
10
However, the behaviour is perhaps incorrect when the last printed
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 at 21:27, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>
> On 04/04/2025 16:26, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Version: timeout (GNU coreutils) 9.6, Archlinux, x86-64.
> >
> > While playing with different duration parameters to `timeout`, I
> > notice
Hi,
Version: timeout (GNU coreutils) 9.6, Archlinux, x86-64.
While playing with different duration parameters to `timeout`, I
noticed that extremely short durations, like `1e-3000`, are rounded
down to `0`. The problem is that `0` has a special meaning (disabling
the timeout), so I don't think th
Hi,
Version: seq (GNU coreutils) 9.6; OS: Archlinux, x86-64
When adding `-w` parameter, we want numbers to be padded with leading 0s,
e.g. this looks correct:
$ seq -w 0 5 10
00
05
10
However, the behaviour is perhaps incorrect when the last printed number
magnitude is lower than the last parame
Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nicolas Boichat
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2025 15:03:15 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] tests: du/bigtime: Try both big and small timestamps
Try both future and past timestamps, for completeness.
---
tests/du/bigtime.sh | 37 +
1 file changed, 21 in
Hi,
Version: env du --version => du (GNU coreutils) 9.7
OS: archlinux, x86-64
The GNU coreutils manual says
(https://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/manual/coreutils.html#index-_002d_002dtime_002dstyle-1):
- "You can specify the default value of the --time-style option with
the environment variabl
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 at 00:07, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>
> tag 79113 notabug
> close 79113
> stop
>
> On 28/07/2025 15:44, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Version: env du --version => du (GNU coreutils) 9.7
> > OS: archlinux, x86-64
>
On Tue, 29 Jul 2025 at 06:12, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>
> On 28/07/2025 20:13, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> > On 28/07/2025 18:49, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> >> I could have been clearer for this last one, I mean that the command
> >> line error text for `du` could men
