Any update? Can you give me a temporary workaround for that?
Thanks
On 17/04/2018 22:53, Alessandro wrote:
Yep i know but i need to use -N on my scenario.
On 17/04/2018 22:49, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 04/17/2018 01:34 PM, Alessandro wrote:
So, how we can solve it?
Perhaps 'diff' should
Yep i know but i need to use -N on my scenario.
On 17/04/2018 22:49, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 04/17/2018 01:34 PM, Alessandro wrote:
So, how we can solve it?
Perhaps 'diff' should not report an error in this situation if -N is
specified.
So, how we can solve it?
On 17/04/2018 22:12, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 04/17/2018 11:28 AM, Alessandro wrote:
The bug is why show the error and ignore -N on sym link.
I think we are miscommunicating. What I am saying is that diff is not
ignoring -N, and there is an error if one directory has
Hi,
The bug is why show the error and ignore -N on sym link.
Thx
(+ML)
On 17/04/2018 17:57, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 04/17/2018 07:17 AM, Alessandro wrote:
It's seems a bug, any fix or workaround for that?
I don't see a bug. "Don't follow symbolic links" doesn't mean "Pr
Hi,
How to reproduce:
Scenario:
|dirA .. bar -> foo foo dirB .. |
Diff man
|-N, --new-file treat absent files as empty --no-dereference don't follow
symbolic links |
Output
|$ diff --no-dereference dirA dirB > /dev/null $ diff -N --no-dereference
dirA dirB > /dev/null diff: dirB/bar: No
