Hi Assaf,
thanks for pushing.
On 8/15/19 9:23 AM, Assaf Gordon wrote:
> We can still add a new web page (echoing the README.older-versions)
> to the coreutils website, to ease finding this information via a search
> engine - WDYT ?
This might encourage people to try to use an older build
On 2019-08-13 11:45 p.m., Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 8/13/19 8:10 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
I'd only like to see following additional changes:
- make the script callable from an arbitrary directory, i.e.,
make the file name of the patches relative to the script, and
- mention to adjust
On 8/13/19 8:10 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> I'd only like to see following additional changes:
>
> - make the script callable from an arbitrary directory, i.e.,
> make the file name of the patches relative to the script, and
>
> - mention to adjust MANPATH (because that also works with the
>
Hi Assaf,
On 8/11/19 6:09 AM, Assaf Gordon wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 03:19:57PM +0200, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
>> On 8/7/19 6:04 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> Since it is something that may contribute to binaries I build (with
>>> the handy related build target), it feels like it
Hello,
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 03:19:57PM +0200, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> On 8/7/19 6:04 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > Since it is something that may contribute to binaries I build (with
> > the handy related build target), it feels like it belongs in
> > version-control
> okay, fine. Both
On 8/7/19 6:04 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Since it is something that may contribute to binaries I build (with
> the handy related build target), it feels like it belongs in
> version-control. Otherwise, if downloading from some web site, we'd
> have to verify the patches via gpg-signature or
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 5:56 PM Assaf Gordon wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 09:35:01PM +0200, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> > On 8/2/19 9:05 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > > Nice work. I've had to go through this process a few times over the
> > > years, and having these handy patch files checked in
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 09:35:01PM +0200, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> On 8/2/19 9:05 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > Nice work. I've had to go through this process a few times over the
> > years, and having these handy patch files checked in and maintained
> > would make it easier to automate
On 8/2/19 9:05 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Nice work. I've had to go through this process a few times over the
> years, and having these handy patch files checked in and maintained
> would make it easier to automate the process. I'm on the fence as to
> whether it's worth checking them in, given how
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 7:48 PM Assaf Gordon wrote:
> While trying to find out the first version with the 'seq' bug
> (my previous email), I realized it has become quite hard to build
> old coreutils version on newer glibc system.
>
> In particular:
> 1. At some point 'gets' was removed from
Hello,
While trying to find out the first version with the 'seq' bug
(my previous email), I realized it has become quite hard to build
old coreutils version on newer glibc system.
In particular:
1. At some point 'gets' was removed from glibc, but old sources refer it.
2. Older gnulib used
11 matches
Mail list logo
