Re: [dev] lock (1) - a dead simple lock script

On 2014-04-08, at 17:48, Calvin Morrison wrote: > The script will either create the lock and exit, or ping the lock > every two seconds until the lock is gone (via rmdir). I'm confused. Surely you also need to lock after old lock goes away? -Truls

Re: [dev] lock (1) - a dead simple lock script

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:33 AM, Truls Becken wrote: > > I'm confused. Surely you also need to lock after old lock goes away? > No, mutantturkeys only need the lock state once. Calling lock twice in the initial state will not wait for any other lock to appear. cheers! mar77i

Re: [dev] lock (1) - a dead simple lock script

@ calvin: fixed version submitted as pull request. @ truls: sorry for mistyping your last names. cheers! mar77i

[dev] [st][PATCH] Fix Backspace and Delete characters

Backspace key must generate the backspace character (\010) and Delete key must generate the delete character (\0177). In some systems the kernel configuration for erasing previous character is \0177, so some programs (for example cat, ed, mail, ...), can not understand the correct meaning of backsp

Re: [dev] lock (1) - a dead simple lock script

guys, I have added a 'try_mkdir' function because we need to check each time the cause of the failure. I think we should fail out if we don't have permissions to create the lock during the loop (like during the first check), rather than it EEXISTS. What do you think? Calvin On 11 April 2014 09:5

Re: [dev] lock (1) - a dead simple lock script

On 11 April 2014 07:39, Calvin Morrison wrote: > I think you're > > > On Apr 11, 2014 4:33 AM, "Truls Becken" wrote: >> >> On 2014-04-08, at 17:48, Calvin Morrison wrote: >> >> > The script will either create the lock and exit, or ping the lock >> > every two seconds until the lock is gone (via r

Re: [dev] lock (1) - a dead simple lock script

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Calvin Morrison wrote: > > Sorry, next time mar77i, check your damned line endings. This I > couldn't see from github website, but I reverted the commit. I don't > want trailing ^M's everywhere. I merged FRIGNs cleanup instead. > Whoa, that's crazy. I seem to hav

Re: [dev] lock (1) - a dead simple lock script

That's okay, I think it's kind of insane too. good ol' dos2unix fixed it fine. On 11 April 2014 10:10, Martti Kühne wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 3:52 PM, Calvin Morrison > wrote: >> >> Sorry, next time mar77i, check your damned line endings. This I >> couldn't see from github website, but

Re: [dev] [st] [patch] redundant gettimeofday

Christoph, are you again to apply this patch now? Regards, -- Roberto E. Vargas Caballero

[dev] lock (1) - where does it go?

new program, new tools, new thread. I'd like lock to belong somewhere. FRIGN and I privately discussed submitting it to moreutils, a package which contains unix utilities which didn't quite make it into coreutils, but are still useful. He says: > Frankly, I don't like the idea. Moreutils is lic

Re: [dev] lock (1) - where does it go?

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 10:25:48AM -0400, Calvin Morrison wrote: > 1) submit it to the suckless repository, if the community so desires Personally I'd like to see something like miscutils, rutils (random utils) or similar under MIT/X. I am sure more programs will pop up.

Re: [dev] [st] [patch] redundant gettimeofday

Greetings. On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 18:01:40 +0200 "Roberto E. Vargas Caballero" wrote: > Christoph, are you again to apply this patch now? No, this patch can be applied safely. Sincerely, Christoph Lohmann

Re: [dev] lock (1) - where does it go?

Greetings. On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 18:02:55 +0200 Calvin Morrison wrote: > I'd like lock to belong somewhere. FRIGN and I privately discussed > submitting it to moreutils, a package which contains unix utilities > which didn't quite make it into coreutils, but are still useful. Submit it to ubase.

Re: [dev] [st] [patch] redundant gettimeofday

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 04:25:26PM +0200, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote: > Christoph, are you again to apply this patch now? Bad typo, I wanted to say "are you going to ...". Sometimes my dislexia makes bad things, sorry. -- Roberto E. Vargas Caballero

Re: [dev] [st] [patch] redundant gettimeofday

Greetings. On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 18:11:47 +0200 "Roberto E. Vargas Caballero" wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 04:25:26PM +0200, Roberto E. Vargas Caballero wrote: > > Christoph, are you again to apply this patch now? > Bad typo, I wanted to say "are you going to ...". > Sometimes my dislexia make

[dev][sbase][RFC] "tr" with -d option or without?

Heyho Recently the '-d' flag was added to the 'tr' program. I liked the simplicity of not having to specify the '-d' flag to delete characters specified in set1 and the TODO entry (still to be deleted) does not mention it. I can see the need for a '-d' flag for compatibility reasons but my prefer

Re: [dev][sbase][RFC] "tr" with -d option or without?

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 09:07:10PM +0200, Silvan Jegen wrote: > I can see the need for a '-d' flag for compatibility reasons but my > preference would be to just ignore the flag if it is specified. What are > peoples opinion on the '-d' flag? I suspect we can do that yes, Hiltjo might be able to s

Re: [dev][sbase][RFC] "tr" with -d option or without?

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 09:07:10PM +0200, Silvan Jegen wrote: > I can see the need for a '-d' flag for compatibility reasons but my > preference would be to just ignore the flag if it is specified. What are > peoples opinion on the '-d' flag? One thing that is different is the breaking conditions

Re: [dev] lock (1) - where does it go?

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 06:02:55PM +0200, Christoph Lohmann wrote: > Greetings. > > On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 18:02:55 +0200 Calvin Morrison > wrote: > > I'd like lock to belong somewhere. FRIGN and I privately discussed > > submitting it to moreutils, a package which contains unix utilities > > which