Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
Also note that the patch exists for 5 years (!!!) and is still not in
the acceptable shape. Looks like parties (like RedHat and LSB) that are
interested in the results that the patch gives are perfectly OK with the
deviation.
Maybe those parties are OK with devia
Matthew Burgess wrote:
2) The i18n patch isn't going to be accepted in its current state,
which I already suspected. It's incomplete and makes the code harder
to maintain. I'm currently waiting on feedback on how to proceed from
here.
Either disagree with the maintainers (because it is simp
Jim Gifford wrote:
> I've just added the patch to the repo
> http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/coreutils/coreutils-5.97-uname-2.patch
>
> Old uname patch
> ---
> # uname -a
> Linux build 2.6.17.8 #1 Thu Aug 17 08:18:42 PDT 2006 i686 athlon-4 i386
> GNU/Linux
>
> new uname
I've just added the patch to the repo
http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/patches/downloads/coreutils/coreutils-5.97-uname-2.patch
Old uname patch
---
# uname -a
Linux build 2.6.17.8 #1 Thu Aug 17 08:18:42 PDT 2006 i686 athlon-4 i386
GNU/Linux
Without uname patch
---
# uname -a
Lin
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 07:46:02PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> 4) We currently use a sed to avoid a supposed buffer overflow in
> translated versions of `who'. This is unnecessary now as it's been
> fixed in a different manner, so the sed can be removed from the book.
From what I read of th
On 8/24/06, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi folks.
I recently posted a message to the bug-coreutils mailing list to see if
we could get our i18n and uname patches committed upstream, or at least
get feedback on what needs to be done in order to get equivalent fixes
available in ups
Hi folks.
I recently posted a message to the bug-coreutils mailing list to see if
we could get our i18n and uname patches committed upstream, or at least
get feedback on what needs to be done in order to get equivalent fixes
available in upstream tarballs.
(http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/b
