Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also, I've made the following adjustments that will
> be combined into your commit before I push.
> Since the commit has your name on it, I'll wait to hear
> back from you before doing this:
>
>>From 929479026b3fd5910c165c22e1fae9f02e773342 Mon Sep 17 00:00
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>From edd292f8d4a5845bcc0d01ab080a6fc9f51a36fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:50:27 -0600
> Subject: [PATCH] sort: improve usage wording
>
> * src/sort.c (usage): Mention that -k defaults to end of l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Jim Meyering on 8/18/2008 10:25 AM:
>>> This question comes up frequently. Is there some wording we can use to
>>> make it more obvious that omitting POS2 implies end of line, while still
>>> being brief enough for --help output?
>> "...e
https://savannah.gnu.org/patch/index.php?6612
Please let me know if you see any issues with this change; I'd like to see it
adopted for the next coreutils release.
--
Jos Backus
jos at catnook.com
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
Benno Schulenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi,
>
> In src/od.c around line 1820 it says this:
>
> if (limit_bytes_to_format)
> {
> end_offset = n_bytes_to_skip + max_bytes_to_format;
> if (end_offset < n_bytes_to_skip)
> error (EXIT_FAILURE, 0, _("skip-bytes + read-b
Benno Schulenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Since max_bytes_to_format cannot be negative, the second 'if' will
> never trigger, so the whole six lines are moot.
It can trigger if there is an arithmetic overflow.
> Further, the Open Group says that 'od' should not produce an error
> when '-
Hi,
In src/od.c around line 1820 it says this:
if (limit_bytes_to_format)
{
end_offset = n_bytes_to_skip + max_bytes_to_format;
if (end_offset < n_bytes_to_skip)
error (EXIT_FAILURE, 0, _("skip-bytes + read-bytes is too large"));
}
Since max_bytes_to_format cannot
Michael Alston wrote:
> This "info coreutils" help feature is very informative, on the sort
> command and many others.
> ...
> What else have I been in the dark about?
You might find the GNU standards manual interesting reading.
http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/html_node/GNU-Manuals.html#GNU-M
Jim,
You've taught me to fish, big time!
I've been using Unix/Linux systems for decades and was only familiar
with the man command for looking up commands.
This "info coreutils" help feature is very informative, on the sort
command and many others.
What else have I been in the dark
> Which website does the best job of presenting usage examples for the sort
> command, for a non-CS major?
You can start with the examples in "info coreutils sort".
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/list
Jim,
Thx for bringing me into the new millenium.
I kinda liked the 19xx's though ... those years were good to me.
BTW, in my example I meant to state:
% sort +5 myfile
rather than
% sort -5 myfile.
I am reading and learning about the current options to the sort command by
surfing the WWW.
T
Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> According to [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 8/17/2008 10:07 PM:
>>> Thank you very much for the clarification, it makes perfect sense to me
>>> now - as I said I was surprised that I appeared to have found a bug.
>>>
>>> I have now reread th
"Michael Alston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Question:
>
> Did the options for the Unix sort command change?
Yes. Some time ago.
> Why does:
>
>% sort -5 myfile
>
> no longer sort myfile by keying off of column 5?
That precise syntax never worked.
However, syntax like this used to be the n
Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> According to [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 8/17/2008 10:07 PM:
>>> Thank you very much for the clarification, it makes perfect sense to me
>>> now - as I said I was surprised that I appeared to have found a bug.
>>>
>>> I have now reread the
Eric Blake wrote:
According to [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 8/17/2008 10:07 PM:
Thank you very much for the clarification, it makes perfect sense to me
now - as I said I was surprised that I appeared to have found a bug.
I have now reread the documentation and I still don't think it is
particularly cle
On Thu, 2008-08-14 at 16:25 +0300, Szabolcs Szakacsits wrote:
...
>
> ntfs-3g correctly returns ENOTEMPTY but this information gets lost and
> arrives as success to gnu rm.
>
> This indeed looks to be a problem in Solaris.
Yup, I agree. Solaris rm(1) has the correct behaviour but using the GNU
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[re-adding the list]
According to [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 8/17/2008 10:07 PM:
>
> Thank you very much for the clarification, it makes perfect sense to me
> now - as I said I was surprised that I appeared to have found a bug.
>
> I have now reread the d
17 matches
Mail list logo
