Good eye! Thanks for the bug report and example. I installed
the following one-byte patch into gnulib; please give it a try.
It should propagate into coreutils the next time coreutils
updates from gnulib.
A test case for this would require two file systems, one with
finer-grained time stamps tha
(Apologies for brain-dead-mailer-induced top posting.)
This patch should not go in a branch: it applies to master. It does not need
to go in a branch: it simply adds a line of documentation to state the
purpose of posix-modules.
--
http://rrt.sc3d.org/
On 1 Dec 2010 16:37, "Bruce Korb" wrote:
On 11/30/10 14:39, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> This patch seems to have been overlooked again. Is there some problem
> with it? It just adds text to posix-modules --help...
>
I was going to put it into the libposix branch, but I left town
for Thanksgiving and only got back the other day. Today, I'm
o
On 12/01/2010 09:53 AM, John Darrington wrote:
> This line in lib/siglist.h:
>
> init_sig (SIGILL, "ILL", N_("Illegal instruction"))
>
> contradicts the GNU Coding Standards which says:
>
> `Please do not use the term "illegal" to refer to erroneous input to a
>computer program. Please u
This line in lib/siglist.h:
init_sig (SIGILL, "ILL", N_("Illegal instruction"))
contradicts the GNU Coding Standards which says:
`Please do not use the term "illegal" to refer to erroneous input to a
computer program. Please use "invalid" for this, and reserve the term
"illegal" for ac
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 04:07:27AM +0100, Bruno Haible wrote:
Hi,
For a long time, we've written our test programs in *.m4 macros in such a
way
that when they fail, the return code is 1.
But often we have several tests, combined in a single program.
Example: m4
Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For a long time, we've written our test programs in *.m4 macros in such a way
> that when they fail, the return code is 1.
>
> But often we have several tests, combined in a single program.
> Example: m4/utimes.m4.
>
> Eric's new style is to use a different return cod
Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Eric Blake writes:
>
>> On 11/29/2010 07:53 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
>>> When savannah is back online: Can we make this recommit of past changes in
>>> such a way that existing checkouts continue to work?
>>> - Is it possible if one person who has a clean checkout does a "git
Eric Blake writes:
> On 11/29/2010 07:53 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
>> When savannah is back online: Can we make this recommit of past changes in
>> such a way that existing checkouts continue to work?
>> - Is it possible if one person who has a clean checkout does a "git push"?
>> Or will the
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Looks good, please push it.
I pushed it, now that savannah is back (except for the web interface).
Bruno
Paul Eggert wrote:
> Thanks, that looks good, except for a couple of minor details:
Thanks again for the review. I've pushed it now, with tiny modifications.
Bruno
11 matches
Mail list logo
