James Youngman wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> On 11/16/12 14:10, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
>>> As I said, my proposal is to introduce a new FTS_ flag that would make
>>> fts_open behave as before that change, and use this flag in findutils.
>>> I haven't heard yet ne
Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 09:52:06PM +, James Youngman wrote:
>> Did anybody do any further work on whether it worked best to fix this
>> in gnulib or in findutils?
>
> As I said, my proposal is to introduce a new FTS_ flag that would make
> fts_open behave as before that
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 11/16/12 14:10, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
>> As I said, my proposal is to introduce a new FTS_ flag that would make
>> fts_open behave as before that change, and use this flag in findutils.
>> I haven't heard yet neither from Jim nor from othe
On 11/16/12 14:10, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> As I said, my proposal is to introduce a new FTS_ flag that would make
> fts_open behave as before that change, and use this flag in findutils.
> I haven't heard yet neither from Jim nor from other gnulib people whether
> it is acceptable or there is a be
Did anybody do any further work on whether it worked best to fix this
in gnulib or in findutils?
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 09:52:06PM +, James Youngman wrote:
> Did anybody do any further work on whether it worked best to fix this
> in gnulib or in findutils?
As I said, my proposal is to introduce a new FTS_ flag that would make
fts_open behave as before that change, and use this flag in fi
