Pádraig Brady wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
Since autoconf 2.64 is now stable, and you have used it (or newer) for the
past
couple of releases/snapshots, any objection to this patch?
Too soon IMHO.
My F11 is on 2.63 for example.
I agree that it's too soon for something that's not a bug fix.
Hello
Man pages for the tail command shows the ability to use the +N option.
Yet, attempting it on Ubuntu 9.10 results in an error.
Is this a bug?
From man pages:
-n, --lines=N
output the last N lines, instead of the last 10; or use +N to
output lines
Hi,
Section 2.11, Standards conformance, of coreutils.info is worded ambigously
with regards to POSIXLY_CORRECT.
The current text says [...] define the `POSIXLY_CORRECT' environment
variable. I took this to mean that the variable needs to be exported (export
POSIXLY_CORRECT), but it needs to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to נחשון ישורון/Nachshon Yeshurun on 11/11/2009 12:11 AM:
Hello
Man pages for the tail command shows the ability to use the +N option.
No, the man pages mention the ability to use the option -n+N.
In fact, because that was so
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Schwarz, Konrad on 11/11/2009 4:45 AM:
The current text says [...] define the `POSIXLY_CORRECT' environment
variable. I took this to mean that the variable needs to be exported
(export POSIXLY_CORRECT),
Correct.
but it needs to
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009, נחשון ישורון/Nachshon Yeshurun wrote:
Man pages for the tail command shows the ability to use the +N option.
Yet, attempting it on Ubuntu 9.10 results in an error.
Is this a bug?
Not a bug.
From man pages:
-n, --lines=N
output the last N lines,
-Original Message-
From: Schwarz, Konrad
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 2:31 PM
To: 'Eric Blake'
Subject: RE: Documentation of POSIXLY_CORRECT
Hello Eric,
thanks for taking this up.
Here is a session transcript that exhibits the bug:
$ unset POSIXLY_CORRECT
$ du
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[please keep the list in the loop, and please don't top-post on technical
discussions]
According to Schwarz, Konrad on 11/11/2009 6:31 AM:
Hello Eric,
thanks for taking this up.
Here is a session transcript that exhibits the bug:
$ unset
Schwarz, Konrad wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Schwarz, Konrad
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 2:31 PM
To: 'Eric Blake'
Subject: RE: Documentation of POSIXLY_CORRECT
Hello Eric,
thanks for taking this up.
Here is a session transcript that exhibits the bug:
$
Eric Blake wrote on 11/04/2009 02:59 AM:
$ cat list-of-groups-greetings.txt | tr -d \r | sort
Useless use of cat.
tr -d \r list-of-groups-greetings.txt | sort
Useless maybe, but then again maybe the user won some time
by it. I often wind up with constructs like this.
Many times, you do
Eric Blake wrote on 11/04/2009 02:59 AM:
$ cat list-of-groups-greetings.txt | tr -d \r | sort
Useless use of cat.
tr -d \r list-of-groups-greetings.txt | sort
Useless maybe, but then again maybe the user won some time
by it. I often wind up with constructs like this.
Many times, you do
Bauke Jan Douma wrote:
Eric Blake wrote on 11/04/2009 02:59 AM:
Useless use of cat.
tr -d \r list-of-groups-greetings.txt | sort
Useless maybe, but then again maybe the user won some time
by it. I often wind up with constructs like this.
Many times, you do 'less /path/to/file', then right
Bauke Jan Douma bjdo...@xs4all.nl writes:
Eric Blake wrote on 11/04/2009 02:59 AM:
$ cat list-of-groups-greetings.txt | tr -d \r | sort
Useless use of cat.
tr -d \r list-of-groups-greetings.txt | sort
Useless maybe, but then again maybe the user won some time
by it. I often wind up
Here's a thought (no immediate rush to implement, though). Should we expose
various *at functions to shell scripting, by adding a new option to specify
which fd to pass as the directory argument? This would allow the creation of
virtual directory change semantics without the cost of forking a
On Wednesday 11 November 2009 17:13:04 Eric Blake wrote:
Here's a thought (no immediate rush to implement, though). Should we
expose various *at functions to shell scripting, by adding a new option to
specify which fd to pass as the directory argument? This would allow the
creation of
Eric Blake e...@byu.net writes:
Mike Frysinger vapier at gentoo.org writes:
--at-fd might be a better explicit option without getting too verbose ?
Indeed.
Note that the at in those functions is actually short for attribute.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key
Mike Frysinger vapier at gentoo.org writes:
cd /tmp
mkdir -p sub
{
ln --at=4 -sf foo bar # call symlinkat(foo,4,bar)
readlink --at=4 -m bar # call areadlinkat(4,bar)
} 4 sub
would output /tmp/sub/foo.
isnt this possible today under linux by using /proc/self/fd ? i'm
Hi GNU Bug fixers,
I am old school and has been using finger ( without fingerd for security
reasons ) on Unix.
Today I came across pinky on RedHat Linux. The man page of this command
specified your email address.
In old days, attackers used to create .project symbolic to passwd and
group
hemant.ru...@us.ing.com wrote:
In old days, attackers used to create .project symbolic to passwd
and group files to get the List of login ids and group via
fingerd.
The list of uids are already public in the /etc/passwd file. That file
is already world readable. Therefore it isn't clear to
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 06:15:32PM -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
hemant.ru...@us.ing.com wrote:
In old days, attackers used to create .project symbolic to passwd
and group files to get the List of login ids and group via
fingerd.
The list of uids are already public in the /etc/passwd
20 matches
Mail list logo
