"Todd C. Miller" writes:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 12:07:31 -0800, Greg Steuck wrote:
>
>> I noticed that despite the OKs the code didn't submitted. Should we
>> revive this diff now and continue in the tree?
>>
>> I have vested interest: I don't want to fix up lang/ghc test suite which
>> is full
On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 12:07:31 -0800, Greg Steuck wrote:
> I noticed that despite the OKs the code didn't submitted. Should we
> revive this diff now and continue in the tree?
>
> I have vested interest: I don't want to fix up lang/ghc test suite which
> is full of seq(1).
Here's an updated diff
Jonathan Gray writes:
> On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 12:07:31PM -0800, Greg Steuck wrote:
>> Ingo Schwarze writes:
>>
>> > Hi Todd,
>> >
>> > in view of your arguments and sthen@'s OK, i'm also OK with this
>> > going in. I think a bit of code cleanup and copy editing in the
>> > manual page may
On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 12:07:31PM -0800, Greg Steuck wrote:
> Ingo Schwarze writes:
>
> > Hi Todd,
> >
> > in view of your arguments and sthen@'s OK, i'm also OK with this
> > going in. I think a bit of code cleanup and copy editing in the
> > manual page may be useful afterwards, but that can
Ingo Schwarze writes:
> Hi Todd,
>
> in view of your arguments and sthen@'s OK, i'm also OK with this
> going in. I think a bit of code cleanup and copy editing in the
> manual page may be useful afterwards, but that can be done in the
> tree, no need for playing patch ping pong.
I noticed
Hi Todd,
in view of your arguments and sthen@'s OK, i'm also OK with this
going in. I think a bit of code cleanup and copy editing in the
manual page may be useful afterwards, but that can be done in the
tree, no need for playing patch ping pong.
See below for answers to the individual points.
On Mon, 16 Nov 2020 16:14:31 +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> are you really sure this is a good idea? The version you sent is
> wildly incompatible with GNU sed. So we add a non-standard utility
> that exhibits different behaviour on different systems even though
> a standard utility already
Hi Todd,
are you really sure this is a good idea? The version you sent is
wildly incompatible with GNU sed. So we add a non-standard utility
that exhibits different behaviour on different systems even though
a standard utility already exists for the purpose?
Is this needed for porting work?
On 2020/11/16 05:49, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> This is originally from NetBSD but FreeBSD appears to have some
> additional fixes.
>
> I know we have jot(1) but seq(1) is considerably easier to use for
> simple things and at this point, most other systems have it.
OK with me. If this goes in then
This is originally from NetBSD but FreeBSD appears to have some
additional fixes.
I know we have jot(1) but seq(1) is considerably easier to use for
simple things and at this point, most other systems have it.
- todd
Index: usr.bin/seq/Makefile
10 matches
Mail list logo
