bone to pick with ls

Hello, I believe that the latest version of ls is broken. Version info: ls (coreutils) 5.2.1 Written by Richard Stallman and David MacKenzie. Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for

tail bug

Using the coreutils version for tail GNU version 5.0.90, I get an incorrect result in the number of lines requested. By example: tail -17 Test.File | wc -l 19 I verified that wc is not the problem. Thanks, Steve Cherelstein [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: bone to pick with ls

Burt Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If I now alias ls as 'ls -F', I get: % ls foo@ % ls foo foo@ POSIX requires this behavior. See http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/ls.html which says that -F does not follow symbolic links named as operands unless the -H or -L

Re: tail bug

smc [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Using the coreutils version for tail GNU version 5.0.90, I get an incorrect result in the number of lines requested. By example: tail -17 Test.File | wc -l 19 I verified that wc is not the problem. Thanks for your report. I can't reproduce the

Re: [PATCH] Prevent redundancy in 'uname -a' (w/ChangeLog)

I dunno, that patch looks a little weird to me, as it causes -a to behave non-orthogonally with respect to the -o option (i.e., -o is treated differently from -s/-n/-r/-v/-m/-p/-i). Also, I suppose it might break some software that parses uname -a output (any such software is unportable, but we'd

Re: Improved tail patch

Should we instead fix 'tail' to use select? Surely that would be efficient (and easier) than all this stuff with O_NONBLOCK. (O_NONBLOCK gives me the willies. :-) Also, how about this small patch to fix your immediate problem? It doesn't fix the general case, but it does fix a

Re: [PATCH] Prevent redundancy in 'uname -a' (w/ChangeLog)

On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:36:04AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: I dunno, that patch looks a little weird to me, as it causes -a to behave non-orthogonally with respect to the -o option (i.e., -o is treated differently from -s/-n/-r/-v/-m/-p/-i). Also, I suppose it might break some software that

Re: Improved tail patch

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Select always returns ready for a fifo. No. It always returns ready for a regular file. For a pipe or socket, it returns nonready if there is a writer on the other end, but there is no data to read. To see this, try { sleep 60; echo foo; } /tmp/test.fifo and let the

Re: Improved tail patch

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Moving tail to use select won't help for fifo's I'm afraid. I think it would also make keeping track of rotations and such messier, but I'm not sure. I think the rotation stuff would be about as messy as it is now. :-) But admittedly I haven't looked into it.