Re: join with header line support

2010-01-26 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 05/11/09 09:29, Pádraig Brady wrote: Assaf Gordon wrote: Hello, Here's an improved version of the '--header' feature for join, with tests, NEWS, doc updates. Reminder: with this option, one can join files even if they contain a header line as the first line. I'll be happy to provide more

help !!

2010-01-26 Thread Camille Brunet
Bonjour, Je vous contacte car j'ai un programme de login sur ma session. Je suis sous opensuse 11.0 et quand j'essaie de me logger, j'ai le message suivant: *could not start kstartupconfig check your installation* . Puis, quand je passe en mode console, et que je me connecte sous ma session, il

Re: help !!

2010-01-26 Thread Bob Proulx
Camille Brunet wrote: Je vous contacte car j'ai un programme de login sur ma session. Je suis sous opensuse 11.0 et quand j'essaie de me logger, j'ai le message suivant: *could not start kstartupconfig check your installation* . You have reached the GNU Coreutils mailing list. The GNU

rm - bug or user error?

2010-01-26 Thread Michael Webb
Hello, This is just a nit I discovered, but I thought I'd pass it along. I am within a directory containing directories dir1 and dir2 and *no* files starting with f. shell rm -rf dir1 dir2 f* rm: No match. From the man page: -f, --force ignore nonexistent files, never

Re: rm - bug or user error?

2010-01-26 Thread Alan Curry
Michael Webb writes: I am within a directory containing directories dir1 and dir2 and *no* files starting with f. shell rm -rf dir1 dir2 f* rm: No match. [...] I suspect the No match is coming from the command line parsing and not rm itself. However, the message starts with rm.

Re: rm - bug or user error?

2010-01-26 Thread Eric Blake
According to Michael Webb on 1/26/2010 6:19 PM: Hello, This is just a nit I discovered, but I thought I'd pass it along. I am within a directory containing directories dir1 and dir2 and *no* files starting with f. shell rm -rf dir1 dir2 f* rm: No match. Which version of rm? GNU

Re: rm - bug or user error?

2010-01-26 Thread Jon Stanley
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Michael Webb mi...@model.com wrote: I'm running /bin/csh.  Don't know how to figure out the coreutil version, however the rm man-page says 5.2.1. Yeah, like Eric said, I think that this is a csh problem rather than a coreutils problem. I would even think that

Re: rm - bug or user error?

2010-01-26 Thread Alan Curry
Jon Stanley writes: Yeah, like Eric said, I think that this is a csh problem rather than a coreutils problem. I would even think that csh is behaving wrongly here - rather than refusing to run rm because the glob didn't match, it should pass the f* straight through to rm to deal with as it

Re: rm - bug or user error?

2010-01-26 Thread Bob Proulx
Jon Stanley wrote: Yeah, like Eric said, I think that this is a csh problem rather than a coreutils problem. I would even think that csh is behaving wrongly here - rather than refusing to run rm because the glob didn't match, it should pass the f* straight through to rm to deal with as it

Re: rm - bug or user error?

2010-01-26 Thread Eric Blake
According to Jon Stanley on 1/26/2010 7:05 PM: On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:57 PM, Michael Webb mi...@model.com wrote: I'm running /bin/csh. Don't know how to figure out the coreutil version, however the rm man-page says 5.2.1. Wow, that's old. The latest stable version is 8.4, and includes

[PATCH] maint: fix an inconsequential mem leak in join

2010-01-26 Thread Pádraig Brady
valgrind was complaining about definite mem leaks in `join` so I refactored the offending code a little and removed the inconseqential leak (which may mask real leaks in future). cheers, Pádraig. From c068a9ab6a164c0e713bb61706c6f40b8e18bb92 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From:

Re: rm - bug or user error?

2010-01-26 Thread Michael Webb
All I can say is wow! You guys are either really good or really bored :-) Maybe both! Thanks for all of the comments, suggestions and discussion. A lot of people around here use ksh or bash. It would probably be worthwhile making the switch--not specifically for this, but for all of the