On 01/04/11 16:14, Philipp Thomas wrote:
> * Philipp Thomas (p...@suse.de) [20110401 17:07]:
>> The manpage for hostid explicitely references coreutils.info but there the
>
> Actually coreutils.info included in coreutils 8.10 has the documentation but
> not coreutils.texi.
On 01/04/11 23:36, George Goffe wrote:
> Alan,
>
> Oops. I goofed... My apologies.
>
> The example would be this "somescript | tee somescript.log 2>&1".
>
> The intent is to capture all the output (stdout and stderr) from
> "somescript". "somescript" runs several commands that may or may not uti
Alan,
Oops. I goofed... My apologies.
The example would be this "somescript | tee somescript.log 2>&1".
The intent is to capture all the output (stdout and stderr) from
"somescript". "somescript" runs several commands that may or may not utilize
other FDs. I was hoping to get a better output tha
George Goffe writes:
> Alan,
>
> Oops. I goofed... My apologies.
>
> The example would be this "somescript | tee somescript.log 2>&1".
>
> The intent is to capture all the output (stdout and stderr) from
> "somescript". "somescript" runs several commands that may or may not utilize
> other FDs.
Alan,
Thank you for your help.
Sorry to bother you with such a trivial "problem". I'm still learning "unix"
after all these years. Sigh.
Have a GREAT weekend and, again, Thanks.
George...
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Alan Curry wrote:
> George Goffe writes:
> > Alan,
> >
> > Oops. I goofe
George Goffe writes:
>
> Howdy,
>
> I have run several scripts and seen this behavior in all cases...
>
> tee somescript | tee somescript.log 2>&1
>
> The contents of the log is missing a lot of activity... messages and so
> forth. Is it possible that there are other file descriptors being used
Howdy,
I have run several scripts and seen this behavior in all cases...
tee somescript | tee somescript.log 2>&1
The contents of the log is missing a lot of activity... messages and so
forth. Is it possible that there are other file descriptors being used for
these messages?
Regards,
George..
On 04/01/2011 02:42 AM, aakanksha gaur wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need to know what is the rationale behind this behavior ?
>
>> cp aa bb
> aa does not exist and neither does bb. No warning is thrown on performing
> this operation.
>
> However,
> if I do
>
>> cp dd cc
> where cc is a non empty file, th
Hi,
I need to know what is the rationale behind this behavior ?
> cp aa bb
aa does not exist and neither does bb. No warning is thrown on performing
this operation.
However,
if I do
> cp dd cc
where cc is a non empty file, then a warning is thrown about the source file
being empty| invalid.
Thi
* Philipp Thomas (p...@suse.de) [20110401 17:07]:
> The manpage for hostid explicitely references coreutils.info but there the
Actually coreutils.info included in coreutils 8.10 has the documentation but
not coreutils.texi.
Philipp
The manpage for hostid explicitely references coreutils.info but there the
part about hostid seems to have been removed somewhen in the past. As there
is no mentioning of a removal in ChangeLog I created the attached patch that
readds the documentation for hostid and hostname that I took from the
5
On 01/04/11 13:21, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> * src/copy.c (copy_internal): Use our existing hardlink to
>> symlink emulation when we're not sure that link() will
>> not dereference the symlink. Also ensure that we copy the
>
> How about "...when link() might dereference..."
Much clearer thanks.
I'
Pádraig Brady wrote:
...
>> Hmm it looks now like we're creating symlinks (with wrong timestamps),
>> but in fact we should be creating hardlinks to symlinks.
>>
>> This seems to have been changed with:
>> http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=coreutils.git;a=commit;h=3346c0af
>
> That commit didn't actu
On 31/03/11 15:11, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 29/03/11 14:46, Ruediger Meier wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> I see you fixed that already for for cp -a
>> http://marc.info/?t=12489708961&r=1&w=2
>>
>> But it does not together with option -link:
>>
>> cd /tmp/
>> ln -s somewhere symlink
>> touch -h -t "19
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 02:15:36PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 03/31/2011 01:58 PM, Christian wrote:
> > Am 31.03.2011 20:54, schrieb Paul Eggert:
> >> On 03/31/2011 11:25 AM, Christian wrote:
> >>> and using "0755" is explicit enough, isn't it ?
> >> Unfortunately it's not that simple, as h
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 11:54:26AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 03/31/2011 11:25 AM, Christian wrote:
> > and using "0755" is explicit enough, isn't it ?
>
> Unfortunately it's not that simple, as having 0755 mean
> something different from 755 would violate the principle
> of least surpris
Hi
have to revoke my last comment "00755 is working here. I can live with
that :) "
This was on the wrong system (SLES 10 SP3), where also a 755 does not
preserve the sbit.
sorry for that
Cheers, Chris
Am 31.03.2011 22:58, schrieb Christian:
Hi
No, 0755 is not explicit - it is ambiguous wi
17 matches
Mail list logo
