On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 11:17:20AM -0600, you wrote:
The second option that I recommend is to deprecate this option
entirely and remove it from the code base.
I think it's safe to say that a number of these utilities have gotten
more flags than they strictly need. Pruning may be a good thing.
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Bob Proulx wrote:
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
Andreas Schwab wrote:
-f, --force, --reply=yes do not prompt before overwriting
-i, --interactive, --reply=query
prompt before overwrite
--reply={yes,no,query} specify how to handle the
Geoffrey Buckle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> System crashed with the signal 11.
Sorry, that's not enough information to reproduce the bug.
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
A problem that I just noticed with the recent change to "du" is that
"du --time=atime" always reports the current time, for all entries.
This is because du reads each directory first, before it stats it,
which means the directory's last-accessed time is always the current
time.
Can you please look
Jim Meyering wrote:
> "Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> > Is this just the current working or the expected behaviour?
>
> It is the intended behavior.
This behavior has confused a number of people so far. It makes sense
to me because I know how it works. I can see the
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum wrote:
> Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > -f, --force, --reply=yes do not prompt before overwriting
> > -i, --interactive, --reply=query
> > prompt before overwrite
> > --reply={yes,no,query} specify how to handle the prompt about an
> >
This is nice. One reason I like it, which I think hasn't been
mentioned yet, is that it gives a standard interface to a piece of
information that might be used by make systems and other programs
which need to find out when directory trees have been modified.
Working through a standard interface mea
Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is this just the current working or the expected behaviour?
>
> In my opinion the --reply=no would make much more sense if i could use it
> in scripts to avoid overwriting files.
IMHO what you are looking for does not fit into the purpose of
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Andreas Schwab wrote:
-f, --force, --reply=yes do not prompt before overwriting
-i, --interactive, --reply=query
prompt before overwrite
--reply={yes,no,query} specify how to handle the prompt about an
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jim Meyering wrote:
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
According to Jim Meyering on 6/24/2005 1:58 AM:
Now, the help output for --reply looks like this:
--reply={yes,no,query} specify how to handle the prompt about an
existing
System crashed with the signal 11.
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Thanks, but that's not accurate, since --reply=no has no effect
>>> if it *precedes* a -i (aka --reply=query) option, and if it
>>> follows -i, then the -i is disreg
"Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> Is this just the current working or the expected behaviour?
It is the intended behavior.
> In my opinion the --reply=no would make much more sense if i could use it
> in scripts to avoid overwriting files.
>
> To quote the current manpage
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Thanks, but that's not accurate, since --reply=no has no effect
>> if it *precedes* a -i (aka --reply=query) option, and if it
>> follows -i, then the -i is disregarded.
>
> Why not just say that -i/-f/--reply o
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks, but that's not accurate, since --reply=no has no effect
> if it *precedes* a -i (aka --reply=query) option, and if it
> follows -i, then the -i is disregarded.
Why not just say that -i/-f/--reply override each other and the last one
wins?
Andrea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Jim Meyering on 6/24/2005 1:58 AM:
> Now, the help output for --reply looks like this:
>
> --reply={yes,no,query} specify how to handle the prompt about an
> existing destination file. Note that
>
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to Jim Meyering on 6/24/2005 1:58 AM:
>> Now, the help output for --reply looks like this:
>>
>> --reply={yes,no,query} specify how to handle the prompt about an
>> existing destination file. Note that
>>
"Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: coreutils
> Version: 5.2.1-2
> Followup-For: Bug #160849
>
> independent from this bugreport (i did not known it), i filed a bug
> report on the GNU core bug page:
>
> http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=12903
Thanks
18 matches
Mail list logo
