bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g

2012-07-05 Thread Bernhard Voelker
On 07/04/2012 09:38 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: On 07/04/2012 01:11 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote: df -k and df -m both work but only df -k is mentioned as part of df -- help. So, the omission to document -m is IMO a bug. I think the general idea is that -k was a mistake, but it's standardized, and

bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g

2012-07-05 Thread Paul Eggert
On 07/04/2012 11:48 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote: Wouldn't it then be consequent to remove the long option --megabyte? Yes, that does make sense.

bug#11854: make syntax-check -j issue

2012-07-05 Thread Jim Meyering
Bernhard Voelker wrote: After pulling to the lastest revision (v8.17-37-g74427c7) and a successful build (make -j), a subsequent make syntax-check -j failed: ... 8.47 vulnerable_makefile_CVE-2009-4029 8.78 copyright_check CC hostname.o CCLD arch CCLD arch

bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g

2012-07-05 Thread Jim Meyering
Bernhard Voelker wrote: On 07/04/2012 09:38 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: On 07/04/2012 01:11 AM, Andreas Jaeger wrote: df -k and df -m both work but only df -k is mentioned as part of df -- help. So, the omission to document -m is IMO a bug. I think the general idea is that -k was a mistake, but

bug#11858: df -m undocumented, why no df -g

2012-07-05 Thread Bernhard Voelker
On 07/05/2012 02:35 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: However, I'm tempted to remove it directly this time, since it's been undocumented for a while: 5 years in df.1 and df --help: COREUTILS-6_9-151-g1e07a21 11 years in coreutils.texi: FILEUTILS-4_1_4-28-gf5bf6fe What do you think? I agree,

bug#11866: command date don't accept 61 sec. minutes

2012-07-05 Thread Juergen Heine
According to The International Earth Rotation Service (IERS) we have Leap Seconds included in our UTC time. Please refer http://hpiers.obspm.fr/iers/bul/bulc/bulletinc.dat . ~ snip ~ A positive leap second will be introduced at the end of June 2012. The sequence of dates of the UTC second

bug#11866: Acknowledgement (command date don't accept 61 sec. minutes)

2012-07-05 Thread Juergen Heine
Hello, can you please do me a favor and correct the typo in the title? don't - doesn't Thank you for the GNU system! -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Sincerely i. A. Juergen Heine juergen.he...@qvs-deutschland.de QVS GmbH Lange Laube 18 D-30159 Hannover http://www.qvs-deutschland.de Tel:

bug#11866: command date don't accept 61 sec. minutes

2012-07-05 Thread Eric Blake
retitle 11866 date doesn't accept 61-sec. minutes tag moreinfo thanks On 07/05/2012 02:15 AM, Juergen Heine wrote: A positive leap second will be introduced at the end of June 2012. The sequence of dates of the UTC second markers will be: 2012 June 30, 23h 59m 59s 2012 June 30, 23h 59m

bug#11866: command date doesn't accept 61 sec. minutes

2012-07-05 Thread Juergen Heine
On 05/07/12 18:39, Eric Blake wrote: retitle 11866 date doesn't accept 61-sec. minutes thank you for the correction. The command 'date' doesn't have any control over whether your system is configured to honor or ignore leap seconds. Some systems are intentionally configured to ignore leap

bug#11866: command date doesn't accept 61 sec. minutes

2012-07-05 Thread Paul Eggert
On 07/05/2012 01:05 PM, Juergen Heine wrote: If i'm correct, can we add this information to the manual for people who don't understand the simple line leap seconds are getting ignored? Sure, I added the following and am marking this as done. From bfda96e0ac5552bb1784f5e1dc311918ce077d50 Mon