Re: several wording mistakes in FAQ

Benno Schulenberg wrote: > several wording mistakes in FAQ Thank you very much for your careful reading of the FAQ! I have corrected most of the items you have mentioned. > On http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/faq/ the second paragraph > says: "This master location of this document is availa

Re: Missing link to mailing list archive at home page

C de-Avillez wrote: > http://www.gnu.org/software/coreutils/ misses a link to the mailing list > archive. > ... > A probable good place would be under the "Mailing Lists" header, adding > a paragraph after the first, like: > > You can search the mailing list archive href="http://lists.gnu.org/ar

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Hi Pádraig, Pádraig Brady writes: > I do wonder though whether it would be better > to have num_processors() try to return this by default? num_processors is going to be used by programs as nproc will be used by scripts; all considerations we made for nproc can be applied to num_processors.

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Thanks for continuing with this. I'm not sure we agreed on the name but I like nproc at least :) Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: > +...@item --available > +...@opindex --available > +Print the number of processors available to the current process. It > +may be less than the number of installed processo

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: ... >>From d1dd83a6a4130ee8b8be47d5d5db461fc60e166a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 ... > diff --git a/NEWS b/NEWS > index 0760775..6b8f6b3 100644 > --- a/NEWS > +++ b/NEWS > @@ -60,6 +60,10 @@ GNU coreutils NEWS-*- > outline -*- >touch now

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Hi Jim, thanks for your quick review. Jim Meyering writes: > Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: >> I included what we have discussed into my patch. I renamed the new >> program to `nproc', now it accepts two options: --available and >> --installed. >> By default --available is used, if --available is n

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: > I included what we have discussed into my patch. I renamed the new > program to `nproc', now it accepts two options: --available and > --installed. > By default --available is used, if --available is not know then > --installed is used. > > I added another test to ensure

Re: [PATCH] core-count: A new program to count the number of cpu cores

Hi, I included what we have discussed into my patch. I renamed the new program to `nproc', now it accepts two options: --available and --installed. By default --available is used, if --available is not know then --installed is used. I added another test to ensure nproc --available <= nproc --ins

Re: FTS not ready for a remount during traversal

Kamil Dudka wrote: > On Thu October 22 2009 16:42:48 Jim Meyering wrote: >> Have you measured the performance penalty it incurs? >> I hope it is possible to do the same thing, but with less of a penalty. >> >> I'm afraid we'll have to do something like that one way or >> another. At best, the impa

Re: coreutils-8.0 on Solaris 10: -lgen needed for eaccess

Voelker, Bernhard wrote: > building coreutils-8.0 fails on Solaris 10: > Undefined first referenced >symbol in file > eaccess ../lib/libcoreutils.a(euidaccess.o) > > The symbol is needed for these utils (aren't th

Re: non-root tests in target check-root?

Voelker, Bernhard wrote: > I'm wondering why there are so many tests (in coreutils-8.0( run by > > sudo env PATH="$PATH" NON_ROOT_USERNAME=$USER make -k check-root > > which are skipped with "must be run as non-root", > e.g. touch/read-only, mv/perm-1, etc. > Is that on purpose (to check wether

[PATCH] admin: automate one more part of the release process

FYI, I've just pushed this to coreutils, so that the following from README-release is no longer manual: * Manually set the date, version number, and [stable/alpha/beta] on line 3 of NEWS, then do e.g.,: v=8.0 pkg=$(sed -n 's/^PACKAGE = \(.*\)/\1/p' Makefile) git commit -F <(printf

Re: mkdir vs. GPL

Eric Blake wrote: > [moving to bug-coreutils] > > According to Eric Blake on 10/30/2009 5:51 AM: >> Actually, I thought of one other solution, after sleeping on the problem. >> Any client (like coreutils) that wants to continue using gnulib-tool >> --avoid=canonicalize-lgpl merely needs to also p