Sami Kerola wrote:
> Either this is bug or an unintuitive feature.
>
> s...@lelux ~/foo touch src dest
> s...@lelux ~/foo chmod g-rwx src
> s...@lelux ~/foo chmod g+rwx dest
> s...@lelux ~/foo ls -l
> total 0
> -rw-rwxr-- 1 sake sake 0 2009-03-30 13:16 dest
> -rwr-- 1 sake sake 0 2009-03-30 13:
Hi!
I'am find a some strange bug in a 'date' program:)
Look at this:
[...@localhost Shell]$ date +%Y-%m-%d
2009-03-30
[...@localhost Shell]$ date -d "0 day -1 month" +%Y-%m-%d
2009-03-02
but must be 2009-02-30 O_o
Thanks for attention.
P.S. Sorry for my english :)
--
BuG
Sergey Trubnikov
__
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Heiko Schlichting on 3/30/2009 3:29 AM:
> Hi,
>
> I read FAQ 24 ("The date command is not working right") but the following
> problem is not what I expect on the day after daylight saving time starts.
> All the outputs are done at epoch 1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Sergey Trubnikov on 3/30/2009 5:54 AM:
> Hi!
> I'am find a some strange bug in a 'date' program:)
>
> Look at this:
> [...@localhost Shell]$ date +%Y-%m-%d
> 2009-03-30
> [...@localhost Shell]$ date -d "0 day -1 month" +%Y-%m-%d
> 2009-03
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 13:43, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Sami Kerola wrote:
>> Either this is bug or an unintuitive feature.
>>
>> s...@lelux ~/foo touch src dest
>> s...@lelux ~/foo chmod g-rwx src
>> s...@lelux ~/foo chmod g+rwx dest
>> s...@lelux ~/foo ls -l
>> total 0
>> -rw-rwxr-- 1 sake sake 0 2
Sami Kerola wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 13:43, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Sami Kerola wrote:
>>> Either this is bug or an unintuitive feature.
>>>
>>> s...@lelux ~/foo touch src dest
>>> s...@lelux ~/foo chmod g-rwx src
>>> s...@lelux ~/foo chmod g+rwx dest
>>> s...@lelux ~/foo ls -l
>>> total 0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Jim Meyering on 3/30/2009 6:14 AM:
>> I give great value for backups, but still I would like to see new and
>> old destination files to have same permissions. Of course when
>> --preserve is specified expectation is changed; source permiss
Sami Kerola wrote:
> I give great value for backups, but still I would like to see new and
> old destination files to have same permissions. Of course when
> --preserve is specified expectation is changed; source permission
> should appear for the new file.
I agree with Jim. Backup file should mai
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Jim Meyering on 3/30/2009 6:14 AM:
>>> I give great value for backups, but still I would like to see new and
>>> old destination files to have same permissions. Of course when
>>> --preserve is specified expectation is changed; source permission
>>> should appear fo
Hi,
Either this is bug or an unintuitive feature.
s...@lelux ~/foo touch src dest
s...@lelux ~/foo chmod g-rwx src
s...@lelux ~/foo chmod g+rwx dest
s...@lelux ~/foo ls -l
total 0
-rw-rwxr-- 1 sake sake 0 2009-03-30 13:16 dest
-rwr-- 1 sake sake 0 2009-03-30 13:16 src
s...@lelux ~/foo cp --fo
after day light
saving starts.
$ date -d now +"%Y%m%d"
20090330
$ date -d yesterday +"%Y%m%d"
20090328
Problem! I expect this to be 20090329.
More details:
$ date -d now
Mon Mar 30 00:01:00 CEST 2009
$ date -d yesterday
Sat Mar 28 23:01:00
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[adding the list anyway]
According to Heiko Schlichting on 3/30/2009 7:09 AM:
> Eric,
>
> thank you for your quick response. I dont't send this answer to the list as
> this is a frequent question and bothering people is not my intention.
>
> But the
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009, Mary wrote:
I just downloaded the new beta afor 9.04 and had the following experience.
For the benefit of the list, I've been trying to help to identify the
source of Ubuntu queries by replying "helpfully" to address the question
as well as asking where bug-coreutils@gnu
hello,
i just read the message as in the subject as i tried to archive some
web-pages. the problem with dropping this option is that there is no
alternative for --reply=no, if you think twice. this option is quite
helpful to not overwrite files of different content but of same name,
as is often wi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Dennis Heuer on 3/30/2009 11:10 AM:
> hello,
>
> i just read the message as in the subject as i tried to archive some
> web-pages. the problem with dropping this option is that there is no
> alternative for --reply=no, if you think twice.
Hello Dennis,
On Monday 30 March 2009 19:10:11 Dennis Heuer wrote:
> i just read the message as in the subject as i tried to archive some
> web-pages. the problem with dropping this option is that there is no
> alternative for --reply=no, if you think twice. this option is quite
> helpful to not o
Jens Ropers wrote:
> 2009/3/30 jaduncan :
>> This is correct behaviour as per POSIX - it's how it should work!
>
> Says who?
I'm confident that POSIX does not require
cp -r dir dir to create dir/dir ;-)
>> This is something that would be an upstream bug, but they will not want
>> to change this b
Jim Meyering wrote:
One last snapshot before 7.2, just in case...
Does this address any of the test failures in [1]? Or are you planning
to release anyway? (For the record, I don't remember there being any
failures that would keep me from installing 7.2 anyway, but I've seen
almost zero foll
This seems like it would be a simple feature and while it may overlap
with (or be slightly redundant to) the sort command, sorting
lexicographically, i.e., foo1, foo2, foo10, foo20 instead of foo1,
foo10, foo2, foo20, would be a nice feature to have.
--adam
__
Jim Meyering writes:
> I'm confident that POSIX does not require
> cp -r dir dir to create dir/dir ;-)
That's certainly true: an implementation is clearly allowed to (but not
required to) report an error and exit without doing anything when it
sees this example. However, that's not what GNU cp
20 matches
Mail list logo
