On Sunday, January 20, 2019 1:29:48 AM CET Alarig Le Lay wrote:
> On sam. 19 janv. 16:45:42 2019, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > Not sure if that is actually "supported" by netifrc.
> > You could add these commands in a postup() block.
>
> I did that, thanks!
>
> > Is there a specific benefit for just s
On January 24, 2019 6:25:48 AM Alan Grimes wrote:
99.999% sure this is not my fault yet my build gets killed dead by it,
no "Okay, let's see what other things we can build", just DIE!!!
Have you tried --keep-going?
##
Verifying ebuild manifests
!!! A file listed in the Manife
99.999% sure this is not my fault yet my build gets killed dead by it,
no "Okay, let's see what other things we can build", just DIE!!!
##
>>> Verifying ebuild manifests
!!! A file listed in the Manifest could not be found:
/usr/portage/dev-python/pygments/files/pygments-2.2.0-sphinx17.
Hello,
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019, Adam Carter wrote:
>> $ printf '0.1.2.3 01.2.3.4 1.2.3.0 1.2.000.3\n' | \
>> sed 's/0*\([[:digit:]]\+\)/\1/g'
>> 0.1.2.3 1.2.3.4 1.2.3.0 1.2.0.3
>
>So [[:digit:]] is another way of writing [0-9] and the + just means another
>instance of the proceeding expression, ri
Top 3 bad ideas of all time:
1. Hitler picking a fight with Stalin.
2. Messing with /usr/lib, /usr/lib32, and /usr/lib64 which had not
caused me a single issue since the scheme was introduced. (17.0 is
broken under ~amd64)
3. Putting 320 people on a baloon filled with Hydrogen and sending it to
Ne
On 1/23/19 2:24 PM, Grant Edwards wrote:
This is not a good application for a regex.
Since that doesn't seem to be stopping anyone, here's my entry.
sed
's/\(0*\(255\|254\|253\|252\|251\|250\|249\|248\|247\|246\|245\|244\|243\|242\|241\|240\|239\|238\|237\|236\|235\|234\|233\|232\|231\|230\
On 2019-01-23, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:41 PM Grant Edwards
> wrote:
>> On 2019-01-23, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>>
>> > This any better? :-)
>> >
>> > echo '198.088.0.01
>> > 198.088.062.01
>> > 198.088.0.001' | sed -r 's/\.0+([^.0]+)/.\1/g'
>>
>> I guess it's 'bette
On 1/23/19 3:08 PM, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
The OP stated that there were no leading zeros in the first octet of
the IP address, so that case did not need to be handled.
$ echo "1.00.3.4" | sed -r 's/\.0+([^.0]+)/.\1/g'
1.00.3.4
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:41 PM Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> On 2019-01-23, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>
> > This any better? :-)
> >
> > echo '198.088.0.01
> > 198.088.062.01
> > 198.088.0.001' | sed -r 's/\.0+([^.0]+)/.\1/g'
>
> I guess it's 'better', but it's still broken:
>
> $ echo '003.4.5.6' | s
On 2019-01-23, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> This any better? :-)
>
> echo '198.088.0.01
> 198.088.062.01
> 198.088.0.001' | sed -r 's/\.0+([^.0]+)/.\1/g'
I guess it's 'better', but it's still broken:
$ echo '003.4.5.6' | sed -r 's/\.0+([^.0]+)/.\1/g'
003.4.5.6
This is not a good application for
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:10 PM Grant Edwards wrote:
>
> On 2019-01-23, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> >
> > How about this one?
> >
> > echo '198.088.0.01
> > 198.088.062.01' | sed 's/\.0\([0-9][0-9]*\)/.\1/g'
> > 198.88.0.1
> > 198.88.62.1
>
> Also no.
>
> $ echo 198.088.0.001 | sed 's/\.0\([0-9]
On 2019-01-23 18:26, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:09:45 - (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
> How about this one?
>
> echo '198.088.0.01
> 198.088.062.01' | sed 's/\.0\([0-9][0-9]*\)/.\1/g'
> 198.88.0.1
> 198.88.62.1
Also no.
$ echo 198.088.0.001 | sed 's/\.0\([0-9][0-9]*\)/.\1
On Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:09:45 - (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
> > How about this one?
> >
> > echo '198.088.0.01
> > 198.088.062.01' | sed 's/\.0\([0-9][0-9]*\)/.\1/g'
> > 198.88.0.1
> > 198.88.62.1
>
> Also no.
>
> $ echo 198.088.0.001 | sed 's/\.0\([0-9][0-9]*\)/.\1/g'
> 198.88.0.01
This
On 2019-01-23, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>
> How about this one?
>
> echo '198.088.0.01
> 198.088.062.01' | sed 's/\.0\([0-9][0-9]*\)/.\1/g'
> 198.88.0.1
> 198.88.62.1
Also no.
$ echo 198.088.0.001 | sed 's/\.0\([0-9][0-9]*\)/.\1/g'
198.88.0.01
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards
On 1/23/19 5:52 AM, Wols Lists wrote:
I've just done a bit of digging, and would this work to match an octet?
[0-9][0-9]?[0-9]?
It doesn't match 0123. Regardless, using [0-9] is destined to fail
because it will match things like 999 that also aren't an octet.
On 23/01/19 07:37, Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:05 AM Paul Colquhoun
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, 23 January 2019 5:52:57 PM AEDT Alexander Kapshuk wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 5:20 AM Adam Carter wrote:
>> François-Xavier
>
> My bad, it should be:
>
16 matches
Mail list logo
