Re: _SC_SIGQUEUE_MAX

2016-06-10 Thread Christos Zoulas
On Jun 10, 4:58pm, charles.cui1...@gmail.com (Charles Cui) wrote: -- Subject: Re: _SC_SIGQUEUE_MAX | I will add them. They are missing now. Good. Thanks. Unit-tests would be good too, and they will show you how to write atf tests... | It is finished and worked well. | Here is the patch Great,

Re: Possible enhancement to find(1)

2016-06-10 Thread Paul Goyette
Anyway, I don't really care one way or the other. I'll make my changes locally, and I'll get what I want. If others want to use findutils, they know where to get it; if others want my changes, ask for them. I just won't commit them without some sort of indication of consent. (Just like my c

Re: _SC_SIGQUEUE_MAX

2016-06-10 Thread Christos Zoulas
On Jun 10, 2:37pm, charles.cui1...@gmail.com (Charles Cui) wrote: -- Subject: Re: _SC_SIGQUEUE_MAX | Thanks, Christos, I will read FreeBSD related code carefully. In the meantime also: - there are no man pages or tests for PRIOPROTECT_AND_GETCLOCK - there are no man pages or tests for PTHREAD (

Re: Possible enhancement to find(1)

2016-06-10 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:03:35 +0800 (PHT) From:Paul Goyette Message-ID: | Does anyone have suggestions and web-sites for a couple of linux | distros? I'm not going to check them all... :) I'd assume they all use the find that's in the gnu findutils which is

Re: Possible enhancement to find(1)

2016-06-10 Thread Paul Goyette
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Robert Elz wrote: Date:Fri, 10 Jun 2016 17:03:35 +0800 (PHT) From:Paul Goyette Message-ID: | Does anyone have suggestions and web-sites for a couple of linux | distros? I'm not going to check them all... :) I'd assume they all use the find t

Re: Possible enhancement to find(1)

2016-06-10 Thread Paul Goyette
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Robert Elz wrote: Date:Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:06:42 +0800 (PHT) From:Paul Goyette Message-ID: | > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 02:18:16PM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote: | >> I'd like to suggest adding new primitives | >> | >> -asince "timestamp" | >

Re: Possible enhancement to find(1)

2016-06-10 Thread Robert Elz
Date:Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:06:42 +0800 (PHT) From:Paul Goyette Message-ID: | > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 02:18:16PM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote: | >> I'd like to suggest adding new primitives | >> | >> -asince "timestamp" | >> -csince "timestamp" | I'll get

Re: Possible enhancement to find(1)

2016-06-10 Thread Paul Goyette
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Roy Marples wrote: On 10/06/2016 10:03, Paul Goyette wrote: Does anyone have suggestions and web-sites for a couple of linux distros? I'm not going to check them all... :) http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/find.1.html Quite a few time related options. Yup - includ

Re: Possible enhancement to find(1)

2016-06-10 Thread Paul Goyette
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Simon Burge wrote: Paul Goyette wrote: I often find myself (no pun intended!) wanting to determine which files were accessed before/since a particular timestamp. There currently exist the -{a,c}{newer,min,time} primitives, but none of these allow me to say "since today at

Re: Possible enhancement to find(1)

2016-06-10 Thread Simon Burge
Paul Goyette wrote: > I often find myself (no pun intended!) wanting to determine which files > were accessed before/since a particular timestamp. There currently > exist the -{a,c}{newer,min,time} primitives, but none of these allow me > to say "since today at 5 AM". > > I'd like to suggest

Re: Possible enhancement to find(1)

2016-06-10 Thread Roy Marples
On 10/06/2016 10:03, Paul Goyette wrote: > Does anyone have suggestions and web-sites for a couple of linux > distros? I'm not going to check them all... :) http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/find.1.html Quite a few time related options. Roy

Re: Possible enhancement to find(1)

2016-06-10 Thread Paul Goyette
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Thomas Klausner wrote: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 02:18:16PM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote: I often find myself (no pun intended!) wanting to determine which files were accessed before/since a particular timestamp. There currently exist the -{a,c}{newer,min,time} primitives, but

Re: Possible enhancement to find(1)

2016-06-10 Thread Thomas Klausner
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 02:18:16PM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote: > I often find myself (no pun intended!) wanting to determine which files were > accessed before/since a particular timestamp. There currently exist the > -{a,c}{newer,min,time} primitives, but none of these allow me to say "since > tod

Re: Possible enhancement to find(1)

2016-06-10 Thread Paul Goyette
On Fri, 10 Jun 2016, Martin Husemann wrote: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 02:18:16PM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote: I'd like to suggest adding new primitives -asince "timestamp" -csince "timestamp" where the timestamp argument would be converted to an actual time using parsedate(3). Do

Re: Possible enhancement to find(1)

2016-06-10 Thread Martin Husemann
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 02:18:16PM +0800, Paul Goyette wrote: > I'd like to suggest adding new primitives > > -asince "timestamp" > -csince "timestamp" > > where the timestamp argument would be converted to an actual time using > parsedate(3). > > Does anyone else think this is a go