This (and the other, similar, message) appear to be resends of prior mail.

http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/request-sponsor/2006-April/001200.html

and

http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/request-sponsor/2005-July/000756.html

Chaos? confusion? Spam?

hank wrote:
> I would like a sponsor to fix bug 6269516, along with 4858191 +
> 4430296.
> 
> Details and diffs at http://www.petertribble.co.uk/Solaris/fixes/4/
> 
> Contributor Agreement OS0019
> 
> 1. 6269516
> 
> I've made the /usr/bin version accept -x, and the xpg4 version accept -d
> 
> This affects the usage message, comments, and the manpage will need to
> be modified to suit.
> 
> I've enabled -o support for the xpg4 version. This makes the usage
> message and the getopt statement identical, removing the need to check
> if XPG4 is defined.
> 
> The differences in behaviour that still exist relate to the default
> behaviour of the -r flag, and the output format.
> 
> (The bug report appears to have not been entirely cleansed of my old
> URL.)
> 
> 
> 2. 4858191
> 
> See also 4430296
> 
> Yes, I know it's closed, but it should be fixed. Linux and BSD support
> -m, and it's very useful as filesystems grow ever larger.
> 
> (And no, -h isn't the answer - it produces scaled numbers which aren't
> the same thing, and which can't be processed numerically [possibly by
> tools which can't handle more than 32-bits worth].)
> 
> So I've added the m flag to the comment, usage messages, getopt, and
> the output section gets an extra if.
> 
> I've also turned off the m flag if -k is given, and vice-versa. (Should
> -h be handled in this manner too?)
> 
> 
> 3. Restructuring
> 
> I've defined output formats to simplify the mess of ifdefs in the
> printsize() routine.
> 
> Hank
>  
>  
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> request-sponsor mailing list
> request-sponsor at opensolaris.org
> 


Reply via email to