On 10/23/18 2:18 AM, Assaf Gordon wrote:
> On 21/10/18 05:06 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
>
>> The 3rd patch adds support for 'test -N FILE' as in bash.
>> Please check (on various platforms / file systems if possible).
>
> "test-N.sh" passes on FreeBSD,OpenBSD,NetBSD (with their respective
>
On 21/10/18 05:06 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
The 3rd patch adds support for 'test -N FILE' as in bash.
Please check (on various platforms / file systems if possible).
"test-N.sh" passes on FreeBSD,OpenBSD,NetBSD (with their respective
default file systems) and on cygwin 64bit over ntfs.
On 10/22/18 2:11 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 21/10/18 16:06, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
>> On 10/21/18 2:09 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>>> I have the opposite impression. Any scripts using this confusing -a
>>> operator are
>>> already broken, and we should phase it out. Not that anybody actually
On 21/10/18 16:06, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> On 10/21/18 2:09 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> I have the opposite impression. Any scripts using this confusing -a operator
>> are
>> already broken, and we should phase it out. Not that anybody actually *uses*
>> coreutils "test -a".
>
> Done with the
Hi Assaf,
On 10/20/18 1:09 AM, Assaf Gordon wrote:
> Hi Bernhard,
>
> On 19/10/18 04:56 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
>> On 10/19/18 10:48 PM, Martin Schulte wrote:
>>
>> The '-a FILE' primary is supported since "the beginning", and even the
>> POSIX spec mentions this unlucky thing:
> [...]
>> I
On 10/21/18 2:09 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> I have the opposite impression. Any scripts using this confusing -a operator
> are
> already broken, and we should phase it out. Not that anybody actually *uses*
> coreutils "test -a".
Done with the attached 1st patch.
The 2nd patch is a cleanup
Hello again!
Paul Eggert wrote:
> Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> > I don't think we can remove that primary without breaking some
> > scripts, so it's probably best to document it.
>
> I have the opposite impression. Any scripts using this confusing -a
> operator are already broken, and we should
Hello!
Paul Eggert wrote:
> Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> > I don't think we can remove that primary without breaking some
> > scripts, so it's probably best to document it.
>
> I have the opposite impression. Any scripts using this confusing -a
> operator are already broken, and we should phase it
Bernhard Voelker wrote:
I don't think we can remove that primary without breaking some scripts,
so it's probably best to document it.
I have the opposite impression. Any scripts using this confusing -a operator are
already broken, and we should phase it out. Not that anybody actually *uses*
Hi Bernhard,
On 19/10/18 04:56 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 10/19/18 10:48 PM, Martin Schulte wrote:
The '-a FILE' primary is supported since "the beginning", and even the
POSIX spec mentions this unlucky thing:
[...]
I don't think we can remove that primary without breaking some scripts,
On 10/19/18 10:48 PM, Martin Schulte wrote:
> Hello coreutils maintainers,
>
> test in coreutils 8.30 supports the unary -a test (is the same as -e) but
> this is not listed on the manpage (in bash 4.4.12 "help test" does list
> it).
>
> I can imagine good reasons to kick out the unary -a but I
Hello coreutils maintainers,
test in coreutils 8.30 supports the unary -a test (is the same as -e) but
this is not listed on the manpage (in bash 4.4.12 "help test" does list
it).
I can imagine good reasons to kick out the unary -a but I think it
then should be kicked out of program and man page
12 matches
Mail list logo
