Pádraig Brady wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> If anyone knows of bug-related fixes that aren't yet applied, >> please speak up. I'm thinking of making a snapshot today, >> leading to a bug-fix release, coreutils-7.6, next week. > > It would be nice to get Ondřej's fix for copy xattrs from readonly files. > I might be able to look at that in a couple of hours.
Thanks! > There's also this one that popped up in our recent favorite: tail-2/wait Right. I suppose it'd be best to add some distcheck-time code to prevent this sort of regression: configure as if inotify were not available, and ensure the tail-related tests still pass. Or maybe even add a hidden (three hyphen ---no-inotify, since we presume it'll be used only for testing) option to expose that behavior without the requirement to jump through build-time hoops. What do you think? >>From a23afe7b726cabd70f1afa7c4164fc8d36fe1c17 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Petr Salinger <petr.salin...@seznam.cz> > Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:58:34 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] tests: fix a tail-2/pid failure on GNU/kFreeBSD > > * tests/tail-2/wait: Increase the file name recheck frequency to > fix a failure on systems without inotify and a file timestamp precision > of 1 second (like GNU/kFreeBSD). > --- > tests/tail-2/wait | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/tail-2/wait b/tests/tail-2/wait > index abe22d7..a5f189f 100755 > --- a/tests/tail-2/wait > +++ b/tests/tail-2/wait > @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ test $? = 124 || fail=1 > > test -s tail.err && fail=1 > > -tail -s.1 -F k > tail.out & > +tail -s.1 --max-unchanged-stats=2 -F k > tail.out & > pid=$! > sleep .5 > mv k l
