Re: [patch] tail(1) follow multiple files

This is broken: $ echo moo | tail -c +2 >From an older working system: $ echo moo | tail -c +2 oo Noticed while trying to package /usr/ports/sysutils/firmware/ulpt.

Re: [patch] tail(1) follow multiple files

Stuart Henderson wrote: > This is broken: > > $ echo moo | tail -c +2 > > > From an older working system: > > $ echo moo | tail -c +2 > oo yes, same as the case with lines which i hack/fixed. martijn sent me a patch, pending review.

Re: [patch] tail(1) follow multiple files

Isn't anyone willing to take a stab at this patch? On 11/09/15 12:56, Martijn van Duren wrote: ping On 11/04/15 23:29, Martijn van Duren wrote: Hello tech@, I got somewhat annoyed by the fact that OpenBSD's tail can't follow multiple files and since the last attempt at it was from 2008 I

Re: [patch] tail(1) follow multiple files

Martijn van Duren wrote: > Isn't anyone willing to take a stab at this patch? > > On 11/09/15 12:56, Martijn van Duren wrote: > > ping > > > > On 11/04/15 23:29, Martijn van Duren wrote: > >> Hello tech@, > >> > >> I got somewhat annoyed by the fact that OpenBSD's tail can't follow > >> multiple

Re: [patch] tail(1) follow multiple files

ping On 11/04/15 23:29, Martijn van Duren wrote: Hello tech@, I got somewhat annoyed by the fact that OpenBSD's tail can't follow multiple files and since the last attempt at it was from 2008 I thought I'd give it a shot. I already sent an earlier version of this diff to Landry who called it

Re: [patch] tail(1) follow multiple files

On 5 November 2015 at 00:29, Martijn van Duren wrote: > > I got somewhat annoyed by the fact that OpenBSD's tail can't follow multiple > files and since the last attempt at it was from 2008 I thought I'd give it a > shot. Thank you for sharing this, hope it gets accepted.

[patch] tail(1) follow multiple files

Hello tech@, I got somewhat annoyed by the fact that OpenBSD's tail can't follow multiple files and since the last attempt at it was from 2008 I thought I'd give it a shot. I already sent an earlier version of this diff to Landry who called it "a welcomed addition", but doesn't have time to