On 8/14/13 4:41 PM, Jacek Krüger wrote:
> According to the manual of bash
> file1 -nt file2
> True if file1 is newer (according to modification date) than file2, or if
> file1 exists and file2 does not
>
> Bash is innacurate when testing modification dates. It ignores fractions of
> a second. Is i
2013/8/14 Jacek Krüger
> Bash is innacurate when testing modification dates. It ignores fractions
> of a second. Is it expected? Coreutils test does it properly.
>
Looks like that is fixed in 4.3-alpha
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bash.git/tree/CHANGES?h=devel#n554
--
Geir Hauge
According to the manual of bash
file1 -nt file2
True if file1 is newer (according to modification date) than file2, or
if file1 exists and file2 does not
Bash is innacurate when testing modification dates. It ignores fractions
of a second. Is it expected? Coreutils test does it properly.
[kr
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 01:44:08PM +0200, Andreas Gregor Frank wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i think a file_not_found_handle() or a modified command_not_found_handle(),
> that does not need an unsuccessful PATH search to be triggered, would be
> useful and consistent.
>
> i found this old (Dec, 2009) discussi
Hi,
i think a file_not_found_handle() or a modified command_not_found_handle(),
that does not need an unsuccessful PATH search to be triggered, would be
useful and consistent.
i found this old (Dec, 2009) discussion :
http://gnu-bash.2382.n7.nabble.com/command-not-found-handle-not-called-if-comma
