rhkramer writes:
> Some examples from (simple) math include adding zero or multiplying by
> 1.
Those are respectively the additive and multiplicative identities. They
are, of course, idempotent but not good examples because they never
change the operand even on first application.
A better
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 07:27:45PM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> My guess is: there's a collection of image files which (occasionally?)
> gets added to, he wants to clean up this data from the files in that
> collection that have it, and he doesn't want to have to keep track of
> which ones have
On 2022-09-26 at 19:16, David Wright wrote:
> On Mon 26 Sep 2022 at 21:31:55 (+0200), Emanuel Berg wrote:
>
>> Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>> The entire thread was a result of your assumption that exif would
>>> NOT write the words "Wrote file" if the input file had no exif
>>> tag in it. This turned
On Mon 26 Sep 2022 at 21:31:55 (+0200), Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> >> Look more, quote less ...
> >>
> >> for f in **/*.jpg; do exif --remove -o $f $f; done | grep
> > 'Wrote
> >> file' | wc -l # 2277 (1st invocation)
> >>
> >> for f in
debian-user wrote:
>> In programming the focus is perhaps better, for something
>> idempotent, something like: Do it the first time.
>> Don't screw it up the second time? And don't do the
>> computing if it doesn't need to be done?
>
> Sorry, but idempotence says nothing at all about
>
> In programming the focus is perhaps better, for something
> idempotent, something like: Do it the first time. Don't screw
> it up the second time? And don't do the computing if it
> doesn't need to be done?
Sorry, but idempotence says nothing at all about computational
efficiency or cost.
Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> Look more, quote less ...
>>
>> for f in **/*.jpg; do exif --remove -o $f $f; done | grep
> 'Wrote
>> file' | wc -l # 2277 (1st invocation)
>>
>> for f in **/*.jpg; do exif --remove -o $f $f; done | grep
> 'Wrote
>> file' |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 09:07:29PM +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
>
> See the first post ...
> >>>
> >>> The OP didn't contain any exif output, only a couple of
> >>> command lines, apparently written in zsh shell
> >>
> >> Look again!
> >
> > Look at it? I'll quote it in
Curt wrote:
> One "programming" example given on that same Wikipedia page
> was that if you applied an update operation to Lutz
> Mueller's email address in a database (*ich habe
> Kopfschmerzen*!) that same update applied a second or third
> time (ad infinitum) would produce identical results.
David Wright wrote:
See the first post ...
>>>
>>> The OP didn't contain any exif output, only a couple of
>>> command lines, apparently written in zsh shell
>>
>> Look again!
>
> Look at it? I'll quote it in full (attached).
Look more, quote less ...
for f in **/*.jpg; do exif
mick.crane wrote:
>> I have now clarified to the best of my ability the meaning
>> of that word and I think that will help people understand
>> at last why incorrect tech information, actually
>> disinformation at that point, can't be allowed in software
>> documentation. I get it now that this
.org (Postfix) with QMQP
id EF8442074B; Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:02:38 + (UTC)
[ … ]
Mail-Followup-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
From: Emanuel Berg
Subject: exif --remove not idempotent, and a Debian man page bug
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 09:02:09 +0200
Messag
On Sunday, September 25, 2022 08:42:57 AM The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2022-09-25 at 08:22, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Oops, ignore that previous response ...
> >
> > On second thought, what hede wrote is correct, it is just stated in a
> > way that I wasn't famiiar with (and I haven't had my
On 2022-09-25, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> If the nature of operation O is such that objects B and
>> C are guaranteed to always be identical, no matter what
>> object A was, then operation O is categorized as
>> being idempotent.
>
> It has to do with the number of times it is
On 2022-09-26 06:42, Emanuel Berg wrote:
<...>
I have now clarified to the best of my ability the meaning of
that word and I think that will help people understand at last
why incorrect tech information, actually disinformation at
that point, can't be allowed in software documentation. I get
it
David Wright wrote:
>> See the first post ...
>
> The OP didn't contain any exif output, only a couple of
> command lines, apparently written in zsh shell
Look again!
> The focus of the thread seems to have changed to the meaning
> of a word in the Subject, and an old email address that
> might
On Sun 25 Sep 2022 at 07:52:38 (+0200), Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > If I had the first inkling of a clue what an exif tag
> > actually *was* I might try testing it myself. I'm gathering
> > that it has something to do with JPEG images, based on the
> > *.modified.jpeg default
> rhkramer wrote:
>
> > An operation that produces the same results no matter how
> > many times it is performed.
>
> Yeah, obviously it is a term from math and in practical and
> applied engineering as is programming I thought of
> a definition (not really) like this
>
> - apply once, you
The Wanderer wrote:
> If the nature of operation O is such that objects B and
> C are guaranteed to always be identical, no matter what
> object A was, then operation O is categorized as
> being idempotent.
It has to do with the number of times it is applied,
abs(x) = abs(abs(x)) =
rhkramer wrote:
> An operation that produces the same results no matter how
> many times it is performed.
Yeah, obviously it is a term from math and in practical and
applied engineering as is programming I thought of
a definition (not really) like this
- apply once, you get the change
- apply
Am 25.09.2022 14:42, schrieb The Wanderer:
On 2022-09-25 at 08:22, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
On second thought, what hede wrote is correct, it is just stated in a
way that I wasn't famiiar with (and I haven't had my morning coffee
yet)
Are you sure?
Meanwhile, I do think my description was
On 2022-09-25 at 08:22, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> Oops, ignore that previous response ...
>
> On second thought, what hede wrote is correct, it is just stated in a
> way that I wasn't famiiar with (and I haven't had my morning coffee
> yet)
Are you sure?
Because it doesn't seem to match my
Oops, ignore that previous response ...
On second thought, what hede wrote is correct, it is just stated in a way that
I wasn't famiiar with (and I haven't had my morning coffee yet)
Sorry for the noise!
On Sunday, September 25, 2022 07:56:08 AM rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday,
On Saturday, September 24, 2022 09:17:31 AM hede wrote:
> "Idempotent" means, that a task with the same input data and the same
> config (for example to remove a tag via exif-tool) results in the same
> output data. Is this the case here?
That is not my understanding of itempotent (nor of
On 2022-09-25 at 01:43, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> The Wanderer wrote:
>>> There should be no history entries in the man pages that
>>> relates to practical aspects that are no
>>> longer operational.
>>
>> The E-mail address doesn't relate to a practical
>> aspect, though.
>
> Ikr? Since it doesn't
Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> The "-o" means: "Write output image to FILE". And it does
>> so, as far as I can see.
>
> The question is whether specifying "-o f f" where the output file
> has the same name as the input file actually overwrites the original
> input file. Another person reported that it
hede wrote:
> "Idempotent" means, that a task with the same input data and
> the same config (for example to remove a tag via exif-tool)
> results in the same output data.
Determinism.
--
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal
The Wanderer wrote:
>>> That's maintainership history, with E-mail
>>> addresses attached.
>>
>> There should be no history entries in the man pages that
>> relates to practical aspects that are no
>> longer operational.
>
> The E-mail address doesn't relate to a practical
> aspect, though.
On Sat 24 Sep 2022 at 12:13:09 (+1200), Alex King wrote:
> On 24/09/22 03:32, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 11:22:31AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> > > 'man bash' cites Brian Fox and Chet Ramey as the authors, and gives an
> > > E-mail address for each. (It's possible that they
On Sat 24 Sep 2022 at 10:43:04 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 03:17:31PM +0200, hede wrote:
> > Am 21.09.2022 14:46, schrieb Emanuel Berg:
> > > Maybe related to the '-o f f' part as your imagination
> > > tells you ...
> >
> > The "-o" means: "Write output image to
On Fri 23 Sep 2022 at 16:14:43 (+0200), Emanuel Berg wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
> >> exif(1) which says on line 57 that --remove
> >>
> >> Remove the tag or (if no tag is specified) the entire IFD.
> >>
> >> Only if it does, why is it there the next time to be removed
> >> as well?
> >
> >
On 2022-09-24, Alex King wrote:
>
>
> I've been using Debian as my main OS since 1997 or earlier. I've spent
> 100s of hours reading man pages. Although it's a reasonable assumption
> (since there are a lot of man pages with outdated AUTHORS sections), I
> didn't know the AUTHORS section is
On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 03:17:31PM +0200, hede wrote:
> Am 21.09.2022 14:46, schrieb Emanuel Berg:
> > Maybe related to the '-o f f' part as your imagination
> > tells you ...
>
> The "-o" means: "Write output image to FILE". And it does so, as far as I
> can see.
The question is whether
Am 21.09.2022 14:46, schrieb Emanuel Berg:
I don't know what the intended behaviof of "exif --remove -o
file file" is. I'm imagining [...]
exif(1) which says on line 57 that --remove
Remove the tag or (if no tag is specified) the entire IFD.
"Idempotent" means, that a task with the same
On 24/09/22 03:32, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 11:22:31AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
'man bash' cites Brian Fox and Chet Ramey as the authors, and gives an
E-mail address for each. (It's possible that they may be the active
upstream maintainers, as well.)
Chet Ramey is the
On 2022-09-23 at 12:02, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> That's maintainership history, with E-mail addresses attached.
>
> There should be no history entries in the man pages that relates to
> practical aspects that are no longer operational.
The E-mail address doesn't relate to
Greg Wooledge wrote:
>> 'man bash' cites Brian Fox and Chet Ramey as the authors,
>> and gives an E-mail address for each. (It's possible that
>> they may be the active upstream maintainers, as well.)
>
> Chet Ramey is the current upstream bash maintainer.
> Brian Fox has not been involved with
The Wanderer wrote:
> That's maintainership history, with E-mail
> addresses attached.
There should be no history entries in the man pages that
relates to practical aspects that are no longer operational.
Commands, examples that once worked but are now removed,
options that are
On 2022-09-23 at 11:32, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 11:22:31AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> 'man bash' cites Brian Fox and Chet Ramey as the authors, and gives
>> an E-mail address for each. (It's possible that they may be the
>> active upstream maintainers, as well.)
>
>
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 11:22:31AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> 'man bash' cites Brian Fox and Chet Ramey as the authors, and gives an
> E-mail address for each. (It's possible that they may be the active
> upstream maintainers, as well.)
Chet Ramey is the current upstream bash maintainer. Brian
On 2022-09-23 at 11:07, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
>> https://manpages.debian.org/bullseye/exif/exif.1.en.html
>>
>>AUTHOR
>>exif was written by Lutz Mueller
>> and numerous contributors.
>>This man page is Copyright © 2002-2012 Thomas Pircher,
>>Dan
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> https://manpages.debian.org/bullseye/exif/exif.1.en.html
>
>AUTHOR
>exif was written by Lutz Mueller
> and numerous contributors.
>This man page is Copyright © 2002-2012 Thomas Pircher,
>Dan Fandrich and others.
>
> This isn't a contact address for bug
On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 04:14:43PM +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> The fix in this case would amount to removing that entry from
> the roff source.
Let's be clear. We're talking about the exif(1) man page, as shown
here?
https://manpages.debian.org/bullseye/exif/exif.1.en.html
AUTHOR
exif
David Wright wrote:
>> But: isn't it still a bug in the distribution man page to
>> refer to mail address that bounces?
>
> I hope the maintainers (Debian's) have better things to do
Are you saying incorrect information in the man pages are OK
in Debian?
> than trawl through email addresses in
On Wed 21 Sep 2022 at 14:46:55 (+0200), Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> > According to the package metadata, the Debian maintainer of
> > exif is:
>
> OK, cool.
>
> > Maintainer: Debian PhotoTools Maintainers
> >
>
> They are CC'd, let's see what they say.
>
> But: isn't it
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> According to the package metadata, the Debian maintainer of
> exif is:
OK, cool.
> Maintainer: Debian PhotoTools Maintainers
>
They are CC'd, let's see what they say.
But: isn't it still a bug in the distribution man page to
refer to mail address that bounces?
>>
On Wed, Sep 21, 2022 at 09:02:09AM +0200, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> I'll mail Lutz Mueller as well
According to the package metadata, the Debian maintainer of exif is:
Maintainer: Debian PhotoTools Maintainers
> for f in **/*.jpg; do exif --remove -o $f $f; done | grep 'Wrote
>
>From IRC ...
vengeance, you the exif(1) guy here, right, how
can it be it isn't idempotent? I just run it for
every jpg on the HDD and after done, it does the
same thing again upon a 2nd invocation
I'll mail Lutz Mueller as well
48 matches
Mail list logo
