Re: missing -lm LDFLAG

On Fri, 2007-06-22 at 22:39 +0100, James Youngman wrote: > On 6/22/07, Natanael Copa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Please add -lm to LDADD in find/Makefile.am so it compiles nice on > > uclibc. > > Which symbols are undefined if -lm is not specified? If you are > referring to modf()

Re: missing -lm LDFLAG

On 6/22/07, Natanael Copa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, Please add -lm to LDADD in find/Makefile.am so it compiles nice on uclibc. Which symbols are undefined if -lm is not specified? If you are referring to modf() or fabs(), this is already fixed (http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detaili

Re: Commit/patch policy for bug-findutils

> Would the members of the list prefer to see the patches? Yes. > Would you comment on them? Probably. > Would you prefer to review them before the commit (and hence protect > the repository better against defects but be on the critical path) or > after (and hence risk there being commits wh

Re: Commit/patch policy for bug-findutils

On 2007-06-22 James Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (changing the subject line) [...] > On 6/21/07, James Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Up to now, I haven't thought about it much. I haven't been posting > >patches to the list, but then there have been no other comitters. > Would t

missing -lm LDFLAG

Hi, Please add -lm to LDADD in find/Makefile.am so it compiles nice on uclibc. Thanks! --- findutils-4.3.4.orig/find/Makefile.am 2007-06-22 14:12:27 + +++ findutils-4.3.4/find/Makefile.am2007-06-22 14:12:57 + @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ EXTRA_DIST = defs.h $(man_MANS) INCLUDES = -I../

Re: Documentation improvement for seconds field of -printf and related actions

On 6/22/07, Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And here's where reviews are nice... s/nto/not/ Thanks, fixed. James. ___ Bug-findutils mailing list Bug-findutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-findutils

Re: Commit/patch policy for bug-findutils

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to James Youngman on 6/22/2007 2:26 AM: >> Up to now, I haven't thought about it much. I haven't been posting >> patches to the list, but then there have been no other comitters. > > Would the members of the list prefer to see the patches?

Re: Documentation improvement for seconds field of -printf and related actions

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to James Youngman on 6/22/2007 2:52 AM: > I just applied the attached patch. And here's where reviews are nice... > @@ -1937,15 +1946,19 @@ time, 24-hour (hh:mm:ss) > @item X > locale's time representation (H:M:S) > @item c > -locale's d

[bug #20173] -printf %TS is printing seconds in decimal form

Update of bug #20173 (project findutils): Status:None => Invalid Open/Closed:Open => Closed ___ Follow-up Comment #2: I just applied a

Documentation improvement for seconds field of -printf and related actions

I just applied the attached patch. 2007-06-22 James Youngman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Better documentation for the fractional part of seconds fields for -printf and similar actions. * doc/find.texi (Time Components): Point out that the seconds field of the timestamp is o

Commit/patch policy for bug-findutils

(changing the subject line) This point came up in discussion with Eric, but I think it's useful to throw the question out to the whole list. Eric has recently worked on some improvements to findutils and asked about the findutils policy on reviewing patches via the list (as for, for example cor

Re: --max-database-age typo

On 6/21/07, Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm committing this as obvious. 2007-06-21 Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * locate/locate.c (set_max_db_age): Fix typo in error message. Thanks. ___ Bug-findutils mailing list Bug-finduti