Glen Lenker wrote:
> > Glen, do you also agree with Ludo's request?
>
> It is fine with me; nproc is quite libraryish.
OK, I've pushed the license change.
Bruno
About a month ago, Solaris 11 Express was released. It's something like a beta
of Solaris 11 that is scheduled to be released in 2011. It's the successor
(from the Oracle side) of the OpenSolaris project; maybe we'll also have
to consider Illumos / OpenIndiana in the future.
I'm updating the docum
John Darrington wrote:
> I'd like to extend this style to all AC_RUN_IFELSE invocations in gnulib,
> ...
> Autoconf and some other projects use the return code 77 to indicate that a
> test
> neither passed nor failed, but could not be conducted.
I'm talking about programs run through A
Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 12/03/10 02:03, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> Would you mind adding a "Bug fixes" entry for this
>> in coreutils' NEWS file? It'd be nice to commit that
>> along with an update of the gnulib submodule to the latest.
>
> Sure, done, with this notice:
>
> cp -u no longer does u
On 12/04/2010 11:44 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Eric, Paul, Jim,
>
>> That sort of thing (possibly with bit masks, as you mention)
>> sounds like a win to me.
>
> Thanks for your support.
>
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> A bit-mask approach gives more information,
>> but may be a bit harder to code, and y
On Sat, Dec 04, 2010 at 12:09:22PM +, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On 4 December 2010 11:07, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 08:15:23PM +, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> >> Is the spacing of the --help for --no-justification a joke? It
> >> backfires rather on terminals narrower than you
Hi Eric,
> If the particular
> combination of failures matches 63, 77, or 99 (as commonly used by
> automake and autoconf to mean version mismatch, skip, or hard fail),
> then the configure script might misbehave.
In the generated configure scripts, AC_RUN_IFELSE tests for an exit
code equal to 0
