On 26/10/15 18:35, Thomas Güttler wrote: > Am 26.10.2015 um 16:51 schrieb Pádraig Brady: >> On 26/10/15 14:26, Thomas Güttler wrote: >>> >>> >>> Am 26.10.2015 um 12:44 schrieb Pádraig Brady: >>>> >>>> I've not sure there is enough distinct actions within timeout(1) to >>>> warrant --verbose? >>>> How about doing this in the script? >>>> >>>> timeout 1s ping localhost >>>> test $? = 124 && echo { 'ping timed out'; exit 1; }
I meant: test $? = 124 && { echo 'ping timed out' >&2; exit 1; } >>> The issue was already closed with "wontfix". This leads me to the >>> conclusion that your are not interested in my answer. >>> >>> Was your "How about doing this in the script?" really a question? >> >> We can always reopen if necessary. > > Who decides if it necessary or not? What needs to be done > to reopen it? This is an open process. bug control details are at: https://debbugs.gnu.org/server-control.html >> I closed as wontfix for now as the above is a strong suggestion. >> Generally one needs to handle the timeout in various ways, >> and printing a diagnostic is just one of those. > > yes, you are right. This issue is about printing a > message. If other ways are needed, then your > above solution can be used as a skeleton. But this > should be handled in different issues/bug-reports. Personally I don't think we need to distinguish these cases. cheers, Pádraig.