Re: NTFS junctions for ln and ls (and others?)

2004-08-24 Thread Bob Proulx
Tuomo Latto wrote: > I'm not sure if this the right place to post this > since I'm not sure if you deal directly with Windows > ports. Not directly. I don't think anyone here uses MS systems. But thanks for bringing it up. I am sure that other users will benefit from it. The best place for dis

sha256sum, sha384sum, sha512sum

2004-08-24 Thread Hanno Böck
Hi, As there have been security issues with md5 and rumors about issues in sha-1, I think tools for sha256sum, sha384sum and sha512sum should be added to coreutils. An implementation is available at http://www.certainkey.com/resources/hashsum.php cu, Hanno Boeck pgpooLkMR5jmn.pgp Description:

NTFS junctions for ln and ls (and others?)

2004-08-24 Thread Tuomo Latto
Hi, I'm not sure if this the right place to post this since I'm not sure if you deal directly with Windows ports. Anyway, I'd like to suggest that for Windows ln would create NTFS junctions whenever possible and politely refuse when not possible. Junction support would be especially nice in ls (and

Re: du 5.2.1 ignores arguments

2004-08-24 Thread Volker Kuhlmann
Thanks Paul. > I don't get that behavior when I run the following little > test script (coreutils 5.2.1, Debian GNU/Linux 3.0r1). > >echo foo >00FILES.du >echo foo >00FILES.hlink >echo foo >00FILES.long >echo foo >00FILES.short >echo foo >00FILES.top >mkdir CDs src >ec

Re: POSIX misunderstanding

2004-08-24 Thread Paul Eggert
Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's no more legal or illegal than "head -42 foo". "head -42 foo" is explicitly disallowed by the guidelines. "head --lines 42 foo" is not. But we're veering from the main point. > I'm bothering. Thanks. (It's a thankless job, normally. :-) > So,

Re: du 5.2.1 ignores arguments

2004-08-24 Thread Paul Eggert
Volker Kuhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> du -sk * > 2 00FILES.du > 2 00FILES.hlink > 680 00FILES.long > 514 00FILES.short > 2 00FILES.top > 3096CDs > 3407318 src > >> du -sk . * > 3412068 . > 2 00FILES.du > 2 00FILES.hlink > 680 00FILES.long > 51

Re: POSIX misunderstanding

2004-08-24 Thread Albert Cahalan
On Thu, 2004-08-19 at 13:55, Paul Eggert wrote: > Albert Cahalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> Guideline 3 says "Multi-digit options should not be allowed." > >> That's an explicit prohibition. > > > > I meant, where is --lines allowed, > > It's a different syntax, that is not addressed by t

Re: [lsb-discuss] Re: New uname option to query exact OS distribution

2004-08-24 Thread Aaron Gaudio
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 21:24 +0200, Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando wrote: > Hi, > > I am not agree to introduce another command, like lsb_release -a. > > uname is sufficient. > > Changing actual -d with the OS release name: FTOSX, RedHat, will solve > the matter. > > Thanks, > Giovanni

du 5.2.1 ignores arguments

2004-08-24 Thread Volker Kuhlmann
> du --version du (coreutils) 5.2.1 > echo $LANG $LC_COLLATE en_GB C > du -sk * 2 00FILES.du 2 00FILES.hlink 680 00FILES.long 514 00FILES.short 2 00FILES.top 3096CDs 3407318 src > du -sk . * 3412068 . 2 00FILES.du 2 00FILES.hlink 680 00FILES.long 514

unexpand, expand POSIX-conformance fixes.

2004-08-24 Thread Paul Eggert
I installed these POSIX-conformance fixes for unexpand. They're fairly subtle, but basically "unexpand" was converted some blanks that it should have left alone. I added test cases for the problem areas. 2004-08-24 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> POSIX-conformance fixes for "expand" an