There have been *many* changes in gnulib since the previous snapshot,
and the changes in coreutils are non-negligible, so please give
this a try. I'd like to make the beta release on Monday.
I'll probably call it coreutils-8.0.
coreutils snapshot:
http://meyering.net/cu/coreutils-ss.tar.gz
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Jim Meyering on 10/3/2009 2:30 AM:
> There have been *many* changes in gnulib since the previous snapshot,
> and the changes in coreutils are non-negligible, so please give
> this a try. I'd like to make the beta release on Monday.
> I'll
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Jim Meyering on 10/3/2009 2:30 AM:
>> There have been *many* changes in gnulib since the previous snapshot,
>> and the changes in coreutils are non-negligible, so please give
>> this a try. I'd like to make the beta release on Monday.
>> I'll probably call it coreu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Jim Meyering on 10/4/2009 2:10 AM:
>> readlink -f link/
>>
>> succeeds, with the claim that 'mkdir link/' will also succeed, we should
>> make sure of that.
>
> Yes, adding a test would be good.
> Such a test would be expected to fail on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 10/4/2009 8:29 AM:
>> If you feel like addressing that right away, that would
>> be great. Otherwise, I think it's safe to say that no one
>> will complain if it is deferred until 8.1.
>
> At this point, it's enough of a co
Passed Skipped Failed
\-
Fedora core 5 x86 | 352 43 1
Fedora 11 x86 | 351 45 0
Solaris 10 x86| 334 62 0
Solaris 9 x86| 331
Pádraig Brady wrote:
>Passed Skipped Failed
> \-
> Fedora core 5 x86 | 352 43 1
> Fedora 11 x86 | 351 45 0
> Solaris 10 x86| 334 62 0
> S
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>Passed Skipped Failed
>> \-
>> Fedora core 5 x86 | 352 43 1
>> Fedora 11 x86 | 351 45 0
>> Solaris 10 x86| 334
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>>Passed Skipped Failed
>>> \-
>>> Fedora core 5 x86 | 352 43 1
>>> Fedora 11 x86 | 351 45 0
>>>
Pádraig Brady draigBrady.com> writes:
> FC5 test failure:
> ln/hard-to-sym
> ln -P -L symlink3 hard-to-a
> ln: creating hard link `hard-to-a' => `symlink3': Invalid argument
I'd be interested in the strace of
ln -P -L symlink3 hard-to-a
as well as 'grep LINK_FOLLOWS config.log'. I
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>
>> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> Pádraig Brady wrote:
Passed Skipped Failed
\-
Fedora core 5 x86 | 352 43 1
Fedora 11 x86 |
Eric Blake wrote:
> Pádraig Brady draigBrady.com> writes:
>
>> FC5 test failure:
>> ln/hard-to-sym
>> ln -P -L symlink3 hard-to-a
>> ln: creating hard link `hard-to-a' => `symlink3': Invalid argument
>
> I'd be interested in the strace of
> ln -P -L symlink3 hard-to-a
attached
>
Pádraig Brady draigBrady.com> writes:
> ln: creating hard link `hardlink' => `symlink': Invalid argument
>
> `man linkat` says that AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW is only supported since 2.6.18
> and my FC5 system is 2.6.17
Bingo. For FC5, I need to implement rpl_linkat in gnulib, which mimics the
link_fo
Pádraig Brady draigBrady.com> writes:
> __xstat64(3, "symlink",
0xbfee893c) = 0
> linkat(-100, 0xbfee8d3e, -100, 0xbfee8d46,
1024)= -1
> stat64("symlink", {st_mode=S_IFREG|0664, st_size=0, ...}) = 0
> connect(-100, {sa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
>>> March 2006?
>> The failure is probably a function of the kernel.
>> Which is it?
>
> In summary this
Eric Blake wrote:
> Pádraig Brady draigBrady.com> writes:
>
>> ln: creating hard link `hardlink' => `symlink': Invalid argument
>>
>> `man linkat` says that AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW is only supported since 2.6.18
>> and my FC5 system is 2.6.17
>
> Bingo. For FC5, I need to implement rpl_linkat in gnulib
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
> This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
> that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
March 2006?
>>> The failure is probably a function of the kernel.
>>> Which is it?
>>
>> In summary this is what fails:
>>
>>
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
>> This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
>> that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
> March 2006?
The failure is probably a function of the kernel.
Which is it?
>>> In summary
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Eric Blake wrote:
>>> According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
>>> This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
>>> that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
>> March 2006?
> The failure is probably a function of the kernel.
>>>
On 10/06/2009 11:05 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
Also a minor nit in s/Linux/Gnu\/Linux/
Definitely not when it's talking explicitly of a kernel version?
Paolo
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>
>> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> Eric Blake wrote:
According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
>>> March 2006?
>> The failure is probabl
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 10/06/2009 11:05 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> Also a minor nit in s/Linux/Gnu\/Linux/
>
> Definitely not when it's talking explicitly of a kernel version?
Right, it could be "GNU/Linux" or "Linux kernels? (.*)?"
cheers,
Pádraig.
Pádraig Brady writes:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Meyering wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
> This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
> that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
March 2
Eric Blake byu.net> writes:
> The patch copies from areadlink.c, as well as link_follow earlier in
> linkat.c, to create two new fd-relative helpers. For now, I didn't see
> any reason to expose them, but areadlinkat may someday be worth making
> into a full-blown module.
Further looking shows
24 matches
Mail list logo
