Pádraig Brady <[email protected]> wrote: ... Thanks! That looks fine. Minor nits in log message:
>>From fbe9201e5e2812bfc112ea05c317b194c98bb4f9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: =?utf-8?q?P=C3=A1draig=20Brady?= <[email protected]> > Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 01:06:10 +0000 > Subject: [PATCH] doc: pathchk description enhancements > > * doc/coreutils.text (pathchk invocation): Mention pathchk s/text/texi/ > checks validity (for current system) as well as portability. > Say messages go to stderr, and reorder description of checks > done for the -p option, to match that done in code. s/that/(those|what's)/ > * src/pathchk.c (usage): Mention pathchk checks name validity. > Suggested clarifications were from Dan Jacobson. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
