Alas, that patch assumes C99, and we can't assume that quite yet.
Also, it mishandles nmerge values that are too large (you'll get
core dumps or worse on many hosts). That being said, it might be
worth adding an option like that (it's a bit specialized, but it's a
big performance win in some
Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about this patch? It fixes the bug that was reported. It does have
the downside of possibly failing with EMFILE when the current version would
not fail, but that is a minor drawback.
2008-03-30 Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
On Monday 31 March 2008 20:02, Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like Michael's suggestion. Rephrasing it,
if (SELinux, with no other MAC or ACL)
use '.'
else if (any other combination of alternate access methods)
use '+'
If someone who already has a copyright
[ I'm Cc'ing [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FYI, this is a continuation of discussion from the SELinux list:
http://marc.info/?t=12064507403r=1w=2
and the debian bug tracking system: http://bugs.debian.org/472590
The problem is that on an SELinux-enabled system, 'ls -l's +,
the alternate access
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 31 March 2008 20:02, Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like Michael's suggestion. Rephrasing it,
if (SELinux, with no other MAC or ACL)
use '.'
else if (any other combination of alternate access methods)
use '+'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Philip Rowlands on 3/31/2008 6:42 AM:
| If you have access to run commands as root on your system, then make
| install should succeed. Otherwise you'll need to ask your system
| administrator.
Or choose a different --prefix when
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alas, that patch assumes C99, and we can't assume that quite yet.
Also, it mishandles nmerge values that are too large (you'll get
core dumps or worse on many hosts). That being said, it might be
worth adding an
Bo Borgerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alas, that patch assumes C99, and we can't assume that quite yet.
Also, it mishandles nmerge values that are too large (you'll get
core dumps or worse on many hosts). That
Bo Borgerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alas, that patch assumes C99, and we can't assume that quite yet.
Also, it mishandles nmerge values that are too large (you'll get
core dumps or worse on many hosts). That
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Pádraig Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jim Meyering wrote:
One more suggestion ;-)
Add tests
you beat me to it :)
Also I would mention that to ammend a patch do:
edit your files
git commit --amend -e -a
git format-patch --stdout
Pádraig Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Also I would mention that to ammend a patch do:
edit your files
git commit --amend -e -a
git format-patch --stdout --signoff HEAD~1 your-branch.diff
Thanks.
I added a few words for that and pushed the new file
with the ungainly long name:
Bad news fellows, regarding:
`-u'
`--update'
Do not copy a non-directory that has an existing destination with
the same or newer modification time. If time stamps are being
preserved, the comparison is to the source time stamp truncated to
the resolutions of the
12 matches
Mail list logo
