Crap, thanks for catching this. I just pushed it to default. Works
great, thanks again!
-brandon
Gaetan Bisson writes:
> Hi,
>
> The BORDER setting to st has recently been broken by the XDBE patch;
> this is fixed by the patch below, which also removes bufh/bufw since
> they are now redundant wi
On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 10:33:19AM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
>>
>> I think cut is exactly the kind of job that awk (or sed) can be good
>> for. It seems crazy not to use an existing tool that implements all
>> the functionality, that can be
On 3 August 2012 14:02, Uriel wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 02, 2012 at 10:33:19AM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote:
>>>
>>> I think cut is exactly the kind of job that awk (or sed) can be good
>>> for. It seems crazy not to use an existing tool that impl
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:00 PM, pancake wrote:
> That is vulnerable on linux. Proper use is:
Anyone using chroot for security is a fool.
Uriel
>
> chdir (path); chroot(".");
>
>
>
> On Aug 1, 2012, at 16:50, Strake wrote:
>
>> diff -r 8cf300476909 chroot.8
>> --- /dev/nullThu Jan 01 00:00
On 3 August 2012 19:02, Uriel wrote:
> head(1) is utterly and completely idiotic. sed 11q is superior in
> every possible way.
% head -n -10
% sed -e :a -e '$d;N;2,10ba' -e 'P;D'
No thanks.
cls
On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 07:57:38PM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 3 August 2012 19:02, Uriel wrote:
> > head(1) is utterly and completely idiotic. sed 11q is superior in
> > every possible way.
>
> % head -n -10
>
> % sed -e :a -e '$d;N;2,10ba' -e 'P;D'
>
> No thanks.
>
> cls
>
$ head
Quoth Connor Lane Smith:
> % head -n -10
Cool, I didn't know that syntax. Useful. Out of curiousity, is it
codified in any standard?
On 3 August 2012 22:15, Nick wrote:
> Cool, I didn't know that syntax. Useful. Out of curiousity, is it
> codified in any standard?
Sadly not. But then, most things aren't.
cls
On 03/08/2012, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> % head -n -10
Not sbase head.
$ seq 0 7 | head -n -2
$
On 4 August 2012 01:01, Strake wrote:
> Not sbase head.
Maybe someone should file a bug. :p
By the way, POSIX tail accepts both positive and negative '-n'
arguments, so it would make sense if head did too. One might expect
'-c' as well. Unfortunately standards seldom make much sense.
cls
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Nick wrote:
> Quoth Connor Lane Smith:
>> % head -n -10
Yea, because obviously what we needed is even more unportable GNU extensions.
If this is your only justification for head, it is really sad.
> Cool, I didn't know that syntax. Useful. Out of curiousity, i
On 4 August 2012 01:37, Uriel wrote:
> Yea, because obviously what we needed is even more unportable GNU extensions.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather use an effective unportable
tool than an ineffective portable one.
cls
On Sat, Aug 04, 2012 at 01:51:27AM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>
> I don't know about you, but I'd rather use an effective unportable
> tool than an ineffective portable one.
>
I'd rather use an effective portable one, and pretending that doesn't
exist doesn't help anything.
13 matches
Mail list logo
