Hi All,
I have a small problem when I tried to install latest 2.6 kernel on my
desktop. When compiling and installing the mkinitrd program referenced
to /bin/true and gae out an error No module /bin/true for linux
2.6.version.
I do not really understand why the version of this binary is
Good Morning:
Sir/Lady.
I am chinese user of RedHat 9. My kernel version is 2.4.20-8 on an i686.
Today I found a little bug of uname command. I read manual of uname. If I used
uname -v, the system will print the kernel version. But I found the system did
not print the kernel version
Sort command seems to be buggy :
$ sort --version
sort (GNU coreutils) 5.94
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software. You may redistribute copies of it under the terms of
the GNU General Public License http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html.
There is NO WARRANTY,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[It is odd that you used the obsolete bug-textutils mailing list alias,
even though you are using the latest coreutils 5.94.]
According to Arnauld Michelizza on 5/2/2006 3:46 AM:
Sort command seems to be buggy :
$ cat foo
83.154.241.254
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to george_xuehui on 5/2/2006 2:20 AM:
Good Morning:
Sir/Lady.
I am chinese user of RedHat 9. My kernel version is 2.4.20-8 on an i686.
Today I found a little bug of uname command. I read manual of uname. If I
used uname -v,
Krishna Kumar [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When compiling and installing the mkinitrd program referenced
to /bin/true and gae out an error No module /bin/true for linux
2.6.version.
This sounds like a problem with mkinitrd or with your module system,
not with coreutils, so you might try asking
george_xuehui [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If I used uname -v, the system will print the kernel version. But I
found the system did not print the kernel version but program
produced time.
Many systems, including mine, use a time stamp to denote the kernel
version. That's probably what happened
Andrew Pinski wrote:
I was lazy today and decided to use compare_tests. Guess what, it doesn't
work on recent coreutils/sort (i.e. the one on FC5).
From the texinfo doc:
On older systems, `sort' supports an obsolete origin-zero syntax
`+POS1 [-POS2]' for specifying sort
Andrew Pinski wrote:
I was lazy today and decided to use compare_tests. Guess what, it doesn't
work on recent coreutils/sort (i.e. the one on FC5).
From the texinfo doc:
On older systems, `sort' supports an obsolete origin-zero syntax
`+POS1 [-POS2]' for
