On 16 May 2006 21:36, Christian Franke wrote:
> René Berber wrote:
>>> Is there a more appropriate place to report patch bugs?
>>>
>>
>> No, that address is the one listed (even if patch now is part of
>> diffutils), see:
>>
>> http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/manual/html_node/Bugs.html
René Berber wrote:
Is there a more appropriate place to report patch bugs?
No, that address is the one listed (even if patch now is part of diffutils),
see:
http://www.gnu.org/software/diffutils/manual/html_node/Bugs.html#Bugs
Page comment is "This manual is for GNU Diffutils (ver
> > Would you mind to discuss this on bug-patch AT gnu DOT org? As far
> > as my opinion counts, I'd think that aligning its behaviour with tar
> > would be a good thing. But the core developers might have an entirely
> > different opinion...
> >
>
> bug-patch is not listed at http://lists.gn
Christian Franke wrote:
> bug-patch is not listed at http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/.
> Sending the report direct to bug-patch AT gnu DOT org, I've seen no
> observable difference to /dev/null ;-)
>
> Is there a more appropriate place to report patch bugs?
No, that address is the one list
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
...
Would you mind to discuss this on bug-patch AT gnu DOT org? As far
as my opinion counts, I'd think that aligning its behaviour with tar
would be a good thing. But the core developers might have an entirely
different opinion...
bug-patch is not listed at http://l
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> I don't see what this has to do with gmtime/localtime since both
> functions create a struct tm from a time_t, not the other way around.
maketime() calculates time_t from tm by an iterative method using the
inverse function.
>
> I just tested your testcase with patch-2.
On Apr 26 11:14, Christian Franke wrote:
> Peter Ekberg wrote:
>
> > If you thought about all that, maybe you also thought about leap
> seconds?
> > Isn't it valid to have 60 in the seconds field when a leap second is
> added?
>
> Yes, this should be valid.
> But maketime() does not provide porta
Peter Ekberg wrote:
> If you thought about all that, maybe you also thought about leap
seconds?
> Isn't it valid to have 60 in the seconds field when a leap second is
added?
Yes, this should be valid.
But maketime() does not provide portable support for it, because it
relies on gmtime/localtime o
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:33:52PM +0200, Christian Franke wrote:
> Dave Korn wrote:
> >...
> >diff -rup patch-2.5.8-8.orig/partime.c patch-2.5.8-8/partime.c
> >--- patch-2.5.8-8.orig/partime.c 2002-12-15 21:37:32.00100 +0100
> >+++ patch-2.5.8-8/partime.c 2006-04-25 12:14:59.797168500 +02
Dave Korn wrote:
...
diff -rup patch-2.5.8-8.orig/partime.c patch-2.5.8-8/partime.c
--- patch-2.5.8-8.orig/partime.c2002-12-15 21:37:32.00100 +0100
+++ patch-2.5.8-8/partime.c 2006-04-25 12:14:59.797168500 +0200
@@ -753,6 +753,8 @@ parse_pattern_letter (s, c, t)
int frac;
On 25 April 2006 12:16, Christian Franke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the patch 2.5.8-8 options -Z and -T do not set filetime if the seconds
> part
> of the timestamp is greater or equal 59.5
> This is because maketime() does not handle "denormalized" times and
> returns an error on tm_sec = 60.
> The attach
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On Apr 25 16:17, Christian Franke wrote:
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
Can you tell me exactly where the problem
happens which leads to this patch, please?
partime.c:
...
parse_pattern_letter (s, c, t)
...
case 's': /* second [00-60 followed by optional fractio
On Apr 25 16:17, Christian Franke wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > Can you tell me exactly where the problem
> > happens which leads to this patch, please?
>
> partime.c:
> ...
> parse_pattern_letter (s, c, t)
> ...
> case 's': /* second [00-60 followed by optional fraction] */
> {
> int
On 25 April 2006 15:17, Christian Franke wrote:
[ Note F-ups set ]
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
>> This doesn't look like a Cygwin specific problem.
>
> Agree, but the RCSID "$Id: partime.c,v ... corinna ...$" encourages me
> to report the problem to this list first ;-)
Then you're misinterpr
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> This doesn't look like a Cygwin specific problem.
Agree, but the RCSID "$Id: partime.c,v ... corinna ...$" encourages me
to report the problem to this list first ;-)
> I don't see this in
> patch-2.5.9, nor in any patched version from Fedora Core or SuSE
Linux.
> Did y
On Apr 25 13:15, Christian Franke wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the patch 2.5.8-8 options -Z and -T do not set filetime if the seconds
> part
> of the timestamp is greater or equal 59.5
> This is because maketime() does not handle "denormalized" times and
> returns an error on tm_sec = 60.
> The attached patch
Hi,
the patch 2.5.8-8 options -Z and -T do not set filetime if the seconds
part
of the timestamp is greater or equal 59.5
This is because maketime() does not handle "denormalized" times and
returns an error on tm_sec = 60.
The attached patch is a quick fix (and a testcase ;-) for this issue.
Chri
17 matches
Mail list logo
