On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 03:01:56PM +0400, Leonid Korostyshevski wrote: > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Darac Marjal > <[1]mailingl...@darac.org.uk> wrote: > > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 02:07:37PM +0400, Leonid Korostyshevski wrote: > > Hello, list! > > I've > googled [1][2]http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=656067 > > and... a solution is? > > A solution to what? If you want the updated coreutils as mentioned in > that bug report, it's in upstable > ([3]http://packages.debian.org/source/unstable/coreutils). If you mean a > solution to the bigger problem of duplicate entries, the upstream bug > suggests that's still being worked out. > > Thanks, Darac! > Is the unstable coreutils will ruin my stable system? Or, if install that > with 'no-recommends' option it is absolutely safe?
Will it ruin it more than a rather long output of df? Probably. It IS unstable after all. It depends on what matters to you. Is the output of one command such an issue to you that you'd upgrade to an untested, volatile version? If so, go ahead, it might work. Other options available to you are to compile your own copy of coreutils with the patch added, to wait for the unstable version to make it into testing and then request a backport or to just work around the problem (perhaps using sed?).
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
