coreutils-4.5.8 released

2003-02-21 Thread Jim Meyering
The big news is that du works better now. I broke it in 4.5.7. So much for my ego. I've added some basic tests of du that actually compare block counts on at least some systems, so such a regression should not recur. Thanks to Bruno Haible for reporting the problem and helping clean up the affect

Re: configure test "working C stack overflow detection" seems to loop

2003-02-21 Thread Jim Meyering
Gerard Beekmans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I tried out coreutils-4.5.7 and noticed a problem with the "C stack > overflow detection" check performed by the configure script. > > It seems to loop infinitely until it gets killed by the kernel. The test > runs for a few minute in which is consumed 5

configure test "working C stack overflow detection" seems to loop

2003-02-21 Thread Gerard Beekmans
Hi guys, I tried out coreutils-4.5.7 and noticed a problem with the "C stack overflow detection" check performed by the configure script. It seems to loop infinitely until it gets killed by the kernel. The test runs for a few minute in which is consumed 512 MB RAM and 128 MB swap. It then gets ki

Re: RFC: do you use du --bytes (-b) [Re: 'du -b' bug in fileutils-4.1

2003-02-21 Thread David Eisner
On 20 Feb 2003, Paul Eggert wrote: > David Eisner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I was using du to get a sense of whether an rsync operation between > > two hosts was successful. ... > Perhaps if we changed 'du' to ignore directory sizes; but this is > sounding more and more like a special case

Re: RFC: do you use du --bytes (-b) [Re: 'du -b' bug in fileutils-4.1

2003-02-21 Thread Jim Meyering
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ... > fileutils 3.16's -b option had two effects. First, it printed sizes > in bytes; second, it accumulated apparent sizes (namely, st_size) > rather than actual disk usage (namely, st_blocks * 512 in the typical > case). In retrospect it would have been be

Re: feature request for chmod/chgrp/...

2003-02-21 Thread Jim Meyering
Tjabo Kloppenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > there's a feature I miss in chmod. > > I know the X flag for chmod, but I would like to set the permissions > of files and directories (with subdirs) independently. > > Example: setting permissions of files to 660, of dirs to 664: > chmod -R . -f 660

Re: cp --no-preserve=mode

2003-02-21 Thread Jim Meyering
Hi Andreas! Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When the destination file does not exist cp uses the permissions of the > source file for creating the destination, as specified by POSIX. Wouldn't > it be useful if --no-preserve=mode would cause cp to use the default > permissions (ie. 066