Re: mkdir vs. GPL

Eric Blake wrote: [moving to bug-coreutils] According to Eric Blake on 10/30/2009 5:51 AM: Actually, I thought of one other solution, after sleeping on the problem. Any client (like coreutils) that wants to continue using gnulib-tool --avoid=canonicalize-lgpl merely needs to also provide a

[PATCH] admin: automate one more part of the release process

FYI, I've just pushed this to coreutils, so that the following from README-release is no longer manual: * Manually set the date, version number, and [stable/alpha/beta] on line 3 of NEWS, then do e.g.,: v=8.0 pkg=$(sed -n 's/^PACKAGE = \(.*\)/\1/p' Makefile) git commit -F (printf

Re: non-root tests in target check-root?

Voelker, Bernhard wrote: I'm wondering why there are so many tests (in coreutils-8.0( run by sudo env PATH=$PATH NON_ROOT_USERNAME=$USER make -k check-root which are skipped with must be run as non-root, e.g. touch/read-only, mv/perm-1, etc. Is that on purpose (to check wether the root

Re: coreutils-8.0 on Solaris 10: -lgen needed for eaccess

Voelker, Bernhard wrote: building coreutils-8.0 fails on Solaris 10: Undefined first referenced symbol in file eaccess ../lib/libcoreutils.a(euidaccess.o) The symbol is needed for these utils (aren't this

Re: FTS not ready for a remount during traversal

Kamil Dudka wrote: On Thu October 22 2009 16:42:48 Jim Meyering wrote: Have you measured the performance penalty it incurs? I hope it is possible to do the same thing, but with less of a penalty. I'm afraid we'll have to do something like that one way or another. At best, the impact will be

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Hi, I included what we have discussed into my patch. I renamed the new program to `nproc', now it accepts two options: --available and --installed. By default --available is used, if --available is not know then --installed is used. I added another test to ensure nproc --available = nproc

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: I included what we have discussed into my patch. I renamed the new program to `nproc', now it accepts two options: --available and --installed. By default --available is used, if --available is not know then --installed is used. I added another test to ensure nproc

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Hi Jim, thanks for your quick review. Jim Meyering j...@meyering.net writes: Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: I included what we have discussed into my patch. I renamed the new program to `nproc', now it accepts two options: --available and --installed. By default --available is used, if

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: ... From d1dd83a6a4130ee8b8be47d5d5db461fc60e166a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 ... diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS index 0760775..6b8f6b3 100644 --- a/NEWS +++ b/NEWS @@ -60,6 +60,10 @@ GNU coreutils NEWS-*- outline -*- touch now accepts

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Thanks for continuing with this. I'm not sure we agreed on the name but I like nproc at least :) Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: +...@item --available +...@opindex --available +Print the number of processors available to the current process. It +may be less than the number of installed processors.

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Hi Pádraig, Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com writes: I do wonder though whether it would be better to have num_processors() try to return this by default? num_processors is going to be used by programs as nproc will be used by scripts; all considerations we made for nproc can be applied to

Re: Missing link to mailing list archive at home page

C de-Avillez wrote: http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/ misses a link to the mailing list archive. ... A probable good place would be under the Mailing Lists header, adding a paragraph after the first, like: You can search the mailing list archive a