On 11/16/22 01:55, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
Bernhard Voelker wrote:
Good to push (with the first 2 in your name)?
Of course. Thanks again.
Thanks! Pushed.
Have a nice day,
Berny
Hi Bernhard,
Thank you for the quick fix!
Bernhard Voelker wrote:
Good to push (with the first 2 in your name)?
Of course. Thanks again.
Best regards,
Antonio.
Hi Antonio,
On 11/15/22 19:55, Antonio Diaz Diaz wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have found a couple minor bugs in the manuals of findutils 4.9.0.
>
> Line 389 of find.texi seems to be redundant:
>
> 388 @deffn Option -files0-from file
> 389 @deffnx Option -files0-from file
Good catch!
See 0001-doc-remov
Hello.
I have found a couple minor bugs in the manuals of findutils 4.9.0.
Line 389 of find.texi seems to be redundant:
388 @deffn Option -files0-from file
389 @deffnx Option -files0-from file
In line 950 of find-maint.texi there is a typo: s/p[art/part/
950 The GNU findutils mantainer has is
On Mon, 12 May 2008, Jim Meyering wrote:
Reuben Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"If there is the faintest possibility that one of the files
for which you are searching might contain a newline, you should use
@samp{-print0} instead."
"that one of the files" --> "that the name of one of the fi
"If there is the faintest possibility that one of the files
for which you are searching might contain a newline, you should use
@samp{-print0} instead."
"that one of the files" --> "that the name of one of the files"
This occurs twice, at least.
--
http://rrt.sc3d.org/ | dumb blonde, n. susbt.
