Hi Jim,
> Am 01.08.2016 um 03:15 schrieb Jim Meyering :
>
> Here's a new snapshot:
> - fix a portability bug in the "colors" tests
> - in that same test, work around an infelicity in shells like dash
> - update to more recent gnulib
> -
> diffutils snapshot:
> http://meyer
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 2:16 AM, Dagobert Michelsen wrote:
> Hi Jim,
Hi Dagobert,
Thank you for the quick testing!
>> Am 01.08.2016 um 03:15 schrieb Jim Meyering :
>>
>> Here's a new snapshot:
...
>> http://meyering.net/diff/diffutils-3.3.52-e974.tar.xz
>
> Just tested on Solaris 10 Sparc, ther
On 07/31/2016 06:36 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> dash's printf builtin handles \e differently -- that's easy to work
> around: use \033, which *is* portable.
> More surprising is that this generates no output:
>
> dash -c 'f() { local t=$(printf '\''\t\t'\''); printf "$t"; }; f'
That's because yo
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 8:27 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 07/31/2016 06:36 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> dash's printf builtin handles \e differently -- that's easy to work
>> around: use \033, which *is* portable.
>> More surprising is that this generates no output:
>>
>> dash -c 'f() { local t=$(p
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Assaf Gordon wrote:
> Hello,
>
>> On Jul 31, 2016, at 21:15, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>> Here's a new snapshot:
>> [...]
>> http://meyering.net/diff/diffutils-3.3.52-e974.tar.xz
>>
>> Changes in diffutils since 3.3.50-0353:
>>
>> Jim Meyering (2):
>> tests: col
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Assaf Gordon wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>> On Jul 31, 2016, at 21:15, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>>
>>> Here's a new snapshot:
>>> [...]
>>> http://meyering.net/diff/diffutils-3.3.52-e974.tar.xz
>>>
>>> Changes in diffut
On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Assaf Gordon wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
On Jul 31, 2016, at 21:15, Jim Meyering wrote:
Here's a new snapshot:
[...]
http://meyering.
Hello,
> On Aug 1, 2016, at 12:44, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Would you please see what the hurd test expected?
> If you rerun it with this patch, the usual testsuite.log file will
> include details:
> <0001-k.diff>
Digging a bit deeper, it seems that GNU Hurd does not have a functional
/proc/self l
