On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 10:35:07 -0600
"Todd C. Miller" wrote:
> We do not typically document the historic usage. However, in this
> case we might make an exception since the old and new syntax are
> semantically different (absolute vs. increment).
Up to you... The only thing i would push for, is
In
We do not typically document the historic usage. However, in this
case we might make an exception since the old and new syntax are
semantically different (absolute vs. increment). I've adapted your
diff as follows.
- todd
Index: renice.c
Hello tech@,
this bugs me for a while now, so I'm sendig this diff in for consideration.
Brings renice(8) manpage and code and POSIX definition more in sync by:
- makeing the code increment the priority instead of setting it when -n is used.
- documenting the backwards compatible "set priority" opt
