I would like to implement the following todo item:
du and wc: add an option to make them read NUL-delimited
file name arguments from a file.
I there anything i should know i start, how would you prefer
the option to be called?
I also saw that the todo lists from fileutils, sh-utils and text u
Ed Avis wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
> >I looked into it a little, and am now even less enthusiastic. Doing
> >it right would mean changes that are way too invasive. They'd have
> >to handle failed chdir, opendir, readdir and retry after a chmod.
>
> Well - that's one way to do it, the other way i
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Jim Meyering wrote:
-F, --really-force
As --force but also change permissions if necessary.
>I looked into it a little, and am now even less enthusiastic. Doing
>it right would mean changes that are way too invasive. They'd have
>to handle failed chdi
TODO list says :
du: add option to use \0 as line terminator rather than \n so that
tools like xdiskusage that parse du output don't choke on file names
with embedded newlines.
I added that option (-0 --print0)
ChangeLog :
* src/du.c
Added option -0 --print0 which replac
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Bob Proulx wrote:
>>% mkdir -p fred/jim
>>% chmod a-x fred/jim
>>% rm -rf fred
>>rm: cannot chdir from `fred' to `jim': Permission denied
>
>But by the action of your chmod you have specifically requested that
>you do not want those files removed!
But by specifying the -f opti
Ed Avis wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> >>% mkdir -p fred/jim
> >>% chmod a-x fred/jim
> >>% rm -rf fred
> >>rm: cannot chdir from `fred' to `jim': Permission denied
> >
> >But by the action of your chmod you have specifically requested that
> >you do not want those files removed!
>
> But by speci
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Ed Avis wrote:
>> > In that case could I make a feature request for a new flag
>> >
>> > -F, --really-force
>> > As --force but also change permissions if necessary.
>>
>> It's feasible.
>> I'm not enthusiastic about thi
Ed Avis wrote:
> % mkdir -p fred/jim
> % chmod a-x fred/jim
> % rm -rf fred
> rm: cannot chdir from `fred' to `jim': Permission denied
But by the action of your chmod you have specifically requested that
you do not want those files removed! Therefore I for one will expect
that you will not be abl
Le Sat, 08 Nov 2003 09:50:13 +0100, Jim Meyering disait :
> Olivier Delhomme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I send a patch on november 2 and i was wondering if
> > it was sent directly to /dev/null ?
>
> You sent it to the right place.
> But sometimes it takes a long time for me to handle feature
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> While trying to distcheck CVS Coreutils with CVS Autoconf and
> CVS Automake I've seen this:
>
> gcc -g -O2 -o tail tail.o ../lib/libfetish.a ../lib/libfetish.a -lm -lrt none
> required
> gcc: none: No such file or directory
> gcc: required:
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can't distcheck coreutils, because it hangs like this:
[using my private, hacked-up version of cvsu]
Hi Alexandre!
Thanks for reporting that.
I knew that particular little sin would come back to haunt me :-)
It's a copy of http://www.cygnus.com
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>-F, --really-force
>>As --force but also change permissions if necessary.
>
>It's feasible.
>I'm not enthusiastic about this, but not strongly opposed either.
A few years ago there was a project called 'The Dammit Patch' to add a
--dammit
Hi!
While trying to distcheck CVS Coreutils with CVS Autoconf and
CVS Automake I've seen this:
gcc -g -O2 -o tail tail.o ../lib/libfetish.a ../lib/libfetish.a -lm -lrt none
required
gcc: none: No such file or directory
gcc: required: No such file or directory
[config.log]
...
configure:
I can't distcheck coreutils, because it hangs like this:
| make my-distcheck
| make[2]: Entering directory `/home/adl/projs/cvs/coreutils'
| if test -f po/POTFILES.in; then \
| grep -E -v '^(#|$)' po/POTFILES.in\
| | grep -v '^src/f
Ed Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In that case could I make a feature request for a new flag
>
> -F, --really-force
> As --force but also change permissions if necessary.
It's feasible.
I'm not enthusiastic about this, but not strongly opposed either.
Let's see if anyone else ha
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>But since I own the directory I could change the permissions and then
>>remove it. Shouldn't rm do this if I gave the 'force' option?
>rm may not do that. POSIX prohibits it.
In that case could I make a feature request for a new flag
-F, --really-f
Olivier Delhomme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I send a patch on november 2 and i was wondering if
> it was sent directly to /dev/null ?
You sent it to the right place.
But sometimes it takes a long time for me to handle feature additions.
> Please let me know, where i am wrong with this patch
> a
Hello,
I send a patch on november 2 and i was wondering if
it was sent directly to /dev/null ?
Please let me know, where i am wrong with this patch
as it adds a feature requested in the TODO list :
dd: consider adding an option to suppress `bytes/block read/written'
output to stderr. Suggest
I had a glance at the TODO list and saw that df -mP had an alignment bug
so i fixed that. Also i saw that an --total option was requested so
did that as well.
I hope i did it alright, if not please make me know so that i can
improve my work. Also i would like to do some more work on df or
possibly
19 matches
Mail list logo
