On 2019-06-25, Michael Forney wrote:
> 1. Invert the ifdef by conditionally *omitting* the sysmacros.h
> include on systems that don't have it rather than including it only on
> glibc. I know this includes at least OpenBSD. Does anyone know of any
> others?
I think this includes most BSD operatin
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 03:48:13PM -0800, Michael Forney wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:46:31AM -0800, Michael Forney wrote:
> > In eb9bda878736344d1bef06d42e57e96de542a663, a bug was introduced in the
> > handling of -1 return values from getline. Since the type of the len
> > field in struct
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:46:31AM -0800, Michael Forney wrote:
> In eb9bda878736344d1bef06d42e57e96de542a663, a bug was introduced in the
> handling of -1 return values from getline. Since the type of the len
> field in struct line is unsigned, the break condition was never true.
> This caused sor
On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 05:12:17AM -0500, Random832 wrote:
> Dimitris Papastamos writes:
> > sbase should only contain code that runs on POSIX systems (with some
> > minor exceptions) and fallback implementations for non-standardized
> > interfaces that can be implemented portably on top of POSIX
Dimitris Papastamos writes:
> sbase should only contain code that runs on POSIX systems (with some
> minor exceptions) and fallback implementations for non-standardized
> interfaces that can be implemented portably on top of POSIX interfaces.
So there's no place for fallback implementations _of_
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 06:53:53PM +, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 20 November 2015 at 18:40, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> > I've attached a patch. It's not too bad, although it does have ugly
> > escape codes. But I don't actually mind either way.
>
> Slightly uglier bugfix.
I've applied the
On 20 November 2015 at 18:40, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> I've attached a patch. It's not too bad, although it does have ugly
> escape codes. But I don't actually mind either way.
Slightly uglier bugfix.
cls
patch
Description: Binary data
On 20 November 2015 at 13:13, FRIGN wrote:
> I think there should be no discussion without a patch. I don't want to see
> anybody express his opinion here unless he has a patch in his attachments.
I've attached a patch. It's not too bad, although it does have ugly
escape codes. But I don't actual
On Fri, 20 Nov 2015 08:08:26 -0500
Greg Reagle wrote:
> I don't think we need to discuss anything. I think what's missing is a patch.
> I think that a patch to highlight the current day would *probably* be accepted
> (but I have no authority, just a regular user/developer).
I think there should
On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 10:48:15AM -0200, Marc Collin wrote:
> I really believe this would be a 0% complexity addition
Don't believe but demonstrate. Did you write a patch yet?
util-linux' cal manpage states:
> the day will be highlighted if the calendar is displayed on a terminal.
Go ahead.
>
I don't think we need to discuss anything. I think what's missing is a patch.
I think that a patch to highlight the current day would *probably* be accepted
(but I have no authority, just a regular user/developer).
Here's a screenshot that shows this (very simple) feature and how it's useful.
What people think? I really believe this would be a 0% complexity
addition and the usefulness would be very high.
http://i.imgur.com/RQUz6cR.png
Left is how it is. Right is how it could be (with current day highlighted).
Manu Raster writes:
> Marc Collin writes:
>
>> It's one of the commands I use the most, and having the current day
>> highlighted is a pretty great feature.
>
> Another really useful function would be an optional column in the
> calendar displaying 'ISO week dates' (DIN ISO 8601). They are quite
Marc Collin writes:
> It's one of the commands I use the most, and having the current day
> highlighted is a pretty great feature.
Another really useful function would be an optional column in the
calendar displaying 'ISO week dates' (DIN ISO 8601). They are quite
common in business parlance but
And of course I forgot to remove [ on uninstall. One more patch to do that.
-emg
From a2145f934990b56b17c1faa564142b1bad42396f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Evan Gates
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:02:12 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] remember to remove [ on uninstall
---
Makefile | 4 ++--
1 file changed,
On Sun, Dec 07, 2014 at 10:40:42PM +, Michael Forney wrote:
> ---
> ls.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/ls.c b/ls.c
> index b48391b..90193cc 100644
> --- a/ls.c
> +++ b/ls.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ typedef struct {
> off_t size;
> time_t mt
With Truls' modifications, I have applied the patch. Sbase now
has tar.
Test away,
Dave
Nick writes:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 04:50:03PM +, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
>> If you're just interacting with
>> a shell, you should be using a simple I/O text window, with or
>> without autocompletion.
>
> I would very much like this to exist, using non-monospaced fonts. It
> wouldn't be
And, here is that patch that I stupidly forgot to attach.
sbase-adding-tar-2.diff
Description: Binary data
On 16 June 2011 02:18, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> An update: I've done this, and added it to the Makefile. It's a little
> simpler than doing it by concatenating all the sources, since we don't
> need to worry about statics or anything. Currently sbase-box comes out
> at 69K statically linked agai
On 11 June 2011 00:40, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> Why not just edit the individual files' main() functions (in a build
> directory) and generate a main.c, compile them, and link the object
> files together? Don't have to worry about anything except main(),
> then.
An update: I've done this, and a
On 9 June 2011 23:24, pancake wrote:
> support for string mode format in chmod. Now you can do stuff like chmod +x
> .. g-rwx , ...
I got round to looking at this. I had to change some of it to make it
POSIX and so on, but I like the approach (which basically avoids the
POSIX's BNF grammar (seri
On 10 June 2011 06:55, pancake wrote:
> On 10/06/2011, at 4:26, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>> No, there's no bug here; size is allocated and memset on the next line.
>
> Your gcc sucks. Mine reports the error here. Size is only allocated if the
> or condition applies which is not something to alway
On 10 June 2011 14:23, Rob wrote:
> Anyway, I had another pop this morning and here's what I got.
Also, forgot to mention, you'll need to alter true.c, false.c and tty.c
so their main conforms, otherwise it won't compile.
On 10 June 2011 04:30, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> The only way this is going to happen is if someone writes a script
> which does it automatically, by going through each utility prefixing
> their main() functions (in a separate build directory), generating a
> common main() which dispatches to the
On 06/10/11 14:25, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
Hey,
On 10 June 2011 06:55, pancake wrote:
Your gcc sucks. Mine reports the error here. Size is only allocated if the
or condition applies which is not something to always happen opening the
doors to use an uninitialized pointer.
I wasn't talking ab
Hey,
On 10 June 2011 06:55, pancake wrote:
> Your gcc sucks. Mine reports the error here. Size is only allocated if the
> or condition applies which is not something to always happen opening the
> doors to use an uninitialized pointer.
I wasn't talking about GCC. Step through the logic in your h
* Anthony J. Bentley [2011-06-09 19:22:47 -0600]:
> Don???t we have /dev/stdin for that anyway?
>
no
/dev/stdin, /dev/fd/0, /proc/self/fd/0 are non standard and
not always available (even on linux systems)
Hi
On 10/06/2011, at 4:26, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 9 June 2011 23:24, pancake wrote:
>> support for string mode format in chmod. Now you can do stuff like chmod +x
>> .. g-rwx , ...
>
> Thanks, I'll get round to looking at this tomorrow.
>
>> fix uninitialized bug in tail
>
> No, ther
On 9 June 2011 23:25, pancake wrote:
> What do you think about creating a single main() in sbase.c that works like
> busybox (as a proxy for the rest of binaries) i think this can be interesting
> for embeddeds. So reading symlink of argv0 and act accordingly.
The only way this is going to happ
On 9 June 2011 23:24, pancake wrote:
> support for string mode format in chmod. Now you can do stuff like chmod +x
> .. g-rwx , ...
Thanks, I'll get round to looking at this tomorrow.
> fix uninitialized bug in tail
No, there's no bug here; size is allocated and memset on the next line.
> sim
On 10 June 2011 02:32, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> Thanks. I actually decided the name system is better, since only that
> is required by POSIX
Though we can allow signums for '-s', despite its not being strictly POSIX.
cls
On 9 June 2011 16:28, Rob wrote:
> I was wondering whether to do that or not, it's pretty useful but
> there's a fair bit more code. I'll leave it to cls to decide.
Thanks. I actually decided the name system is better, since only that
is required by POSIX, and it means we can use the same arg par
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:58 PM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 9 June 2011 13:40, stateless wrote:
>> Attached cmp.c and cmp.1.
>
> Thanks! I'm also not bothering with '-', so I took that out, which
> meant we could simplify the code a lot.
Don’t we have /dev/stdin for that anyway?
--
Anthony J.
On 9 June 2011 13:40, stateless wrote:
> Attached cmp.c and cmp.1.
Thanks! I'm also not bothering with '-', so I took that out, which
meant we could simplify the code a lot.
cls
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:25 PM, pancake wrote:
> What do you think about creating a single main() in sbase.c that works like
> busybox (as a proxy for the rest of binaries) i think this can be interesting
> for embeddeds. So reading symlink of argv0 and act accordingly.
please for the love of g
What do you think about creating a single main() in sbase.c that works like
busybox (as a proxy for the rest of binaries) i think this can be interesting
for embeddeds. So reading symlink of argv0 and act accordingly.
On 09/06/2011, at 17:28, Rob wrote:
> On 9 June 2011 16:06, Hiltjo Posthuma
Here's my contribution:
* support for string mode format in chmod. Now you can do stuff like chmod +x
.. g-rwx , ...
* fix uninitialized bug in tail
* simplify sleep() -- do not use getopt here.
The chmod patch is not complete at all, but works much better and +x is
something many ppl use.
Abo
On 9 June 2011 16:06, Hiltjo Posthuma wrote:
> I like it, but what about -signalnumber (and maybe -signalname), I use
> -9 all the time :)
I was wondering whether to do that or not, it's pretty useful but
there's a fair bit more code. I'll leave it to cls to decide.
#include
#include
#include
>
> Ah man, I've just been doing kill.c myself. Lowest SLOC count makes it
> into base?
>
I like it, but what about -signalnumber (and maybe -signalname), I use
-9 all the time :)
No worries Rob! :)
On 9 June 2011 13:54, stateless wrote:
> Arrgh fucking gmail.
+1
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include "util.h"
int
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int sig = SIGTERM;
char c, *end;
while((c = getopt(argc, argv, "s:")) != -1)
switch(c){
case 's':
sig = strtol(optarg, &end, 0)
On 9 June 2011 13:48, stateless wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just to be on the same page and we don't start working on the same
> tools. I'll look into implementing id, kill and comm.
>
> Thanks,
> stateless
Ah man, I've just been doing kill.c myself. Lowest SLOC count makes it
into base?
#include
#include
Arrgh fucking gmail.
/* See LICENSE file for copyright and license details. */
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include "util.h"
static bool lflag = false;
static bool sflag = false;
int
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
FILE *fp0, *fp1;
int c;
int line, byte;
int ch0, ch1;
in
Small update, attached cmd.c and cmd.1.
/* See LICENSE file for copyright and license details. */
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include "util.h"
static bool lflag = false;
static bool sflag = false;
int
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
FILE *fp0, *fp1;
int c;
int line, byte;
Hi,
Just to be on the same page and we don't start working on the same
tools. I'll look into implementing id, kill and comm.
Thanks,
stateless
Attached cmp.c and cmp.1.
/* See LICENSE file for copyright and license details. */
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include "util.h"
static bool lflag = false;
static bool sflag = false;
int
main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
FILE *fp0, *fp1;
int c;
int line, byte;
int ch0, ch1
Hey,
For anyone interested in helping out with sbase, I've pushed a TODO
file containing all the commands I think we need to implement, at
least to begin with. I'll be working on these whenever I have free
time, and if anyone else could help that would be great.
Thanks,
cls
Here is a half-assed old version of chmod, in the vein of v5 chmod.
It has a man page and informative ed-style error messages, but no
recursion or POSIX-style 'symbolic mode expressions.' I'll refactor
it to use util/recurse later. I don't really care about 'symbolic
mode expressions.'
--
# Kur
The tac.c i pushed few time ago is magnitudes faster than awk.
That was the reasom why nibble and me wrote it.
On 26/05/2011, at 20:45, markus schnalke wrote:
> [2011-05-26 07:39] Anselm R Garbe
>>
>> Afaik tac sucks more, as it is quite an arbitrary command, not part of
>> Plan 9 and can be
[2011-05-26 07:39] Anselm R Garbe
>
> Afaik tac sucks more, as it is quite an arbitrary command, not part of
> Plan 9 and can be imitated with a awk one liner like
>
> awk '{a[i++]=$0} END {for (j=i-1; j>=0;) print a[j--] }'
Okay, but who want's to type this line by hand?
IMO tac *should be in
On 26 May 2011 07:39, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> As for sbase I'm still sceptical this is a good idea as it
> re-implements perfectly sound 9base tools, but avoids the real tricky
> ones such as rc, mk or awk.
I, basically, disagree. The Plan 9 tools were written for another
operating system: ls has
On 26 May 2011 07:18, pancake wrote:
> What about cat and tac? I already pushed tac to 9base few time ago, but it
> was removed.. It fits better in sbase.
Afaik tac sucks more, as it is quite an arbitrary command, not part of
Plan 9 and can be imitated with a awk one liner like
awk '{a[i++]=$0}
What about cat and tac? I already pushed tac to 9base few time ago, but it was
removed.. It fits better in sbase.
On 26/05/2011, at 7:19, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> Update!
>
> We've got 20 utilities now: basename, cat, chown, date, dirname, echo,
> false, grep, head, ln, ls, mkdir, mkfifo, pw
Update!
We've got 20 utilities now: basename, cat, chown, date, dirname, echo,
false, grep, head, ln, ls, mkdir, mkfifo, pwd, rm, sleep, tee, touch,
true, and wc.
I think the most crucial ones missing are chmod, cp, mv, seq, sort,
tail, test, and uniq. And probably others. Working on it! I've bee
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:54 AM, pancake wrote:
> On 05/24/11 19:12, Rafa Garcia Gallego wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Christian Neukirchen
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Remotely reminds me of http://code.google.com/p/aoeui/ which also is
>>> pretty lightweight, has UTF8, is binary-safe, an
On 05/24/11 19:12, Rafa Garcia Gallego wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Christian Neukirchen
wrote:
Remotely reminds me of http://code.google.com/p/aoeui/ which also is
pretty lightweight, has UTF8, is binary-safe, and has infinite
undo. ~7KLOC, no curses dependency.
This reminds me of
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Christian Neukirchen
wrote:
> Remotely reminds me of http://code.google.com/p/aoeui/ which also is
> pretty lightweight, has UTF8, is binary-safe, and has infinite
> undo. ~7KLOC, no curses dependency.
This reminds me of my very own sandy[1]. Sorry for the blatant
Kurt H Maier writes:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>> Looking forward to it. imo we need a new editor...
>
> I like this:
> http://www.stabie-soft.com/sre/re.html
>
> it's no sam, but for short one-off edits (or even as a pager) I like
> it.
Remotely reminds me of
59 matches
Mail list logo
