On Fri, Jul 05, 2002 at 05:53:01PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
Thanks for the report. If you had not mentioned Debian I would have
immediately jumped to the conclusion presented in this FAQ. But
Debian does not set LANG by default without the user being informed of
it and you would be the
$ cat /etc/issue
Debian GNU 3.0 (Woody)
Thanks for the report. If you had not mentioned Debian I would have
immediately jumped to the conclusion presented in this FAQ. But
Debian does not set LANG by default without the user being informed of
it and you would be the first to have reported
You wrote:
[...sort -M doesn't work the way I expect it to...]
Thanks for the report, but that's not due to a bug.
Two things might be causing trouble here:
- a common misunderstanding about how sort works with byte offsets:
without `-b' or the b attribute, each field includes leading
Owen
Strange:
'sort roadstmp1.17848' works on my Viglen Genie P3 650 running RedHat
7.1, linux 2.4.9
but not on my Dual P3 1Ghz Caompaq ML 370 RedHat 7.1, linux 2.4.8. It
segments returning 139 for $?.
Thanks for the report. However there are two things that could be
improved. This
Peter
sort fails for me on the attached file. Here is all the version
information:
Thanks for the report and for supplying all of the needed version
information. That was great.
[urbi@lsec2 oracle]$ sort --version
sort (GNU textutils) 2.0e
[urbi@lsec2 oracle]$ uname -a
Linux
Bob Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter
sort fails for me on the attached file. Here is all the version
information:
Thanks for the report and for supplying all of the needed version
information. That was great.
[urbi@lsec2 oracle]$ sort --version
sort (GNU textutils) 2.0e
Greg Lindahl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| bash$ more example
| 109 bar
| 111 b
| 111 a
| 1 10
| 9 foo
| bash$ sort -k 1,1rn -k 2,2 example
| 111 a
| 111 b
| 1 10
| 109 bar
| 9 foo
|
| It seems that the n is making sort ignore the separator, so it sorts
| 1 10 as if it were the number 110. That
bash$ sort -k 1,1rn -k 2,2 example
bash$ sort --version
sort (GNU textutils) 2.0a
bash$ rpm -q -f `which sort`
textutils-2.0a-2
This is a vanilla redhat 6.2 system.
Your report matches a common pattern. Jim has previously answered
these reports with the following mail. Note that some
Oops! Sorry, I should have caught that. Thanks for your help. :)
paddy
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Bob Proulx wrote:
There seems to be a bug in 'sort' from textutils-2.0 in how it treats
non-alphanumeric characters: it ignores them by default when sorting. I
[...]
Your report matches a
There seems to be a bug in 'sort' from textutils-2.0 in how it treats
non-alphanumeric characters: it ignores them by default when sorting. I
[...]
Your report matches a common pattern. Jim has previously answered
these reports with the following mail. Note that some vendors set
those
Robert Citek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| I was working with sort and noticed that I got some errors when string
| lengths were multiples of 16. Here's a bash script to demonstrate the error:
|
| ( c=x; list=; length=0
| for length in $(seq 1 48); do
| echo length == ${length}
|
At 11:41 AM 5/27/2001 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
Thanks for the report.
I haven't heard of that bug before.
In any case, it doesn't appear to be a problem in the latest test release:
ftp://alpha.gnu.org/gnu/fetish/textutils-2.0.14.tar.gz
It may be a bug specific to RedHat 7.0. From the
Dear Bob and Jim,
On january 11, 2001, I received mails from you both, stating more or less
the same (here, I quote Jim):
"Henk M. Keller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| [sort -n doesn't work]
I've heard that RedHat introduced a bug that made `sort -n'
malfunction in a version they
I can not explain the behavior of the command "sort" as demonstrated in the
following typescript:
Thank you for your report. Jim has previously answered these reports
with something similar to the the following reply.
Note that later versions of sort include the following warning.
***
"craig martin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I wrote yesterday that "the sort utility program (written by Mike Haertel) that
| came with my Red Hat LInux 6.2 (obtained about April 2000) and that is part of
| the GNU textutils 2.0a (December 1999) seems to have a fundamental flaw". I
| have found
15 matches
Mail list logo
