Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What do you think is unclear about this sentence?
>
> That is, an omitted INCREMENT defaults to 1 even when LAST is smaller
> than FIRST.
Okay, that's clear; I do not knwo why I missed it.
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thanks for c
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> (or at least it shouldn't stop the "make"-process).
>
> If you don't like that it stops the make processes, you can use the -k
> option to make. make stops for any program that returns a return
> value >0; and any sane program that fails to work returns a value >0.
Hu
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In a few cases, the default coreutils behavior conforms to POSIX, but
> coreutils changes its behavior if POSIXLY_CORRECT is set. Here is a
> patch to remove these special cases; this lessens the effect of
> POSIXLY_CORRECT on coreutils behavior. This patc
On my Linux 2.4.18 host, CVS coreutils "make check" fails in the pwd
test due to what appears to be an obvious typo in
m4/getcwd-path-max.m4. Here's a patch.
2004-06-15 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* getcwd-path-max.m4 (GL_FUNC_GETCWD_PATH_MAX): Fix typo: getcwd
was being re
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For true, Peter Seebach made the point back in 1999[*] that one should
> be able to use true-with-any-arguments as a no-op. Sure, it's usually
> better to use `:', but sometimes we need a command that can be `exec'd.
That's reasonable, but the current u
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> For true, Peter Seebach made the point back in 1999[*] that one should
>> be able to use true-with-any-arguments as a no-op. Sure, it's usually
>> better to use `:', but sometimes we need a command that can be `
