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

2009-11-02 Thread Jim Meyering
Voelker, Bernhard wrote: Jim Meyering wrote: 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,

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

2009-11-02 Thread Voelker, Bernhard
Jim Meyering wrote: 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

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

2009-11-02 Thread Voelker, Bernhard
Jim Meyering wrote: Voelker, Bernhard wrote: Jim Meyering wrote: 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,

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

2009-11-02 Thread Jim Meyering
Voelker, Bernhard wrote: Jim Meyering wrote: Voelker, Bernhard wrote: Jim Meyering wrote: 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

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

2009-11-02 Thread Voelker, Bernhard
Jim Meyering wrote: Voelker, Bernhard wrote: Jim Meyering wrote: Voelker, Bernhard wrote: Jim Meyering wrote: 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

Problem with sort command

2009-11-02 Thread Justin White
I have been using the sort command for years with a syntax as follows: cat $file | sort -t, +1 I create filesystems on Linux and AIX from a CSV file and sort by the second column as shown above. Recently I have tried this command on RHEL 5.1 and it fails. So I went and tried on Ubuntu 9.04 and

Re: Problem with sort command

2009-11-02 Thread Philip Rowlands
On Mon, 2 Nov 2009, Justin White wrote: I have been using the sort command for years with a syntax as follows: cat $file | sort -t, +1 This is addressed in the FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/coreutils-faq.html#Old-tail-plus-N-syntax-now-fails In short, sort is treating +1 as

wrong output of who and finger

2009-11-02 Thread Burba, Viktor
Dear GNU team, I have a problem with output from who command. As you can see below busdm:~ # who -u root pts/0Nov 2 15:56 . 21861 (192.168.0.20) root pts/6Jun 18 13:04 ? 15579 (10.11.20.1) busdm:~ # uptime 4:06pm up 3 days 2:19, 2 users, load

Re: wrong output of who and finger

2009-11-02 Thread Pádraig Brady
Burba, Viktor wrote: Dear GNU team, I have a problem with output from who command. As you can see below busdm:~ # who -u root pts/0Nov 2 15:56 . 21861 (192.168.0.20) root pts/6Jun 18 13:04 ? 15579 (10.11.20.1) busdm:~ # uptime 4:06pm up

temp file suffixes: mktemp DWIM

2009-11-02 Thread Eric Blake
Now that glibc 2.11 has mkostemps, and I'm working on adding that to gnulib, it would be nice to expose the idea of an explicit suffix to temporary file names. But rather than require the user to count how long their suffix is, I imagine it would make more sense to give mktemp(1) some

Re: temp file suffixes: mktemp DWIM

2009-11-02 Thread Jim Meyering
Eric Blake wrote: Now that glibc 2.11 has mkostemps, and I'm working on adding that to gnulib, it Good to hear it. would be nice to expose the idea of an explicit suffix to temporary file names. But rather than require the user to count how long their suffix is, I imagine it would make

Re: wrong output of who and finger

2009-11-02 Thread Bob Proulx
Burba, Viktor wrote: I have a problem with output from who command. As you can see below busdm:~ # who -u root pts/0Nov 2 15:56 . 21861 (192.168.0.20) root pts/6Jun 18 13:04 ? 15579 (10.11.20.1) busdm:~ # uptime 4:06pm up 3 days 2:19, 2

Re: temp file suffixes: mktemp DWIM

2009-11-02 Thread Eric Blake
Jim Meyering jim at meyering.net writes: the default template is tmp.XX, do we want to continue to guarantee that we generate a file such as tmp.abcdef1234, Why change? Good point. As part of my gnulib work, I guess that means I'll have to regenerate the coreutils patch to

Re: mkdir vs. GPL

2009-11-02 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Jim Meyering on 10/31/2009 1:57 AM: With this patch, and a bump to the latest gnulib[*], I can (once again) compile coreutils on cygwin 1.5 with --enable-gcc-warnings. Does it look okay to commit, once gnulib falls into place? This

date

2009-11-02 Thread Escarrilla, Harold
/u/hescarri 29$ date -d2009-10-30 + 3 days Sun Nov 1 23:00:00 EST 2009 It should be Nov 2. Harold Escarrilla Morgan Stanley | Technology Data 1 New York Plaza, 12th Floor | New York, NY 10004 Phone: +1 212 276-3206 harold.escarri...@morganstanley.com

Re: mkdir vs. GPL

2009-11-02 Thread Jim Meyering
Eric Blake wrote: According to Jim Meyering on 10/31/2009 1:57 AM: With this patch, and a bump to the latest gnulib[*], I can (once again) compile coreutils on cygwin 1.5 with --enable-gcc-warnings. Does it look okay to commit, once gnulib falls into place? This looks fine. Test writers

Re: date

2009-11-02 Thread Bob Proulx
Escarrilla, Harold wrote: /u/hescarri 29$ date -d2009-10-30 + 3 days Sun Nov 1 23:00:00 EST 2009 It should be Nov 2. What version of date are you using? date --version I cannot recreate this behavior with a recent version of date. $ date -d2009-10-30 + 3 days Mon Nov 2 00:00:00