On 2017-07-18 9:15 PM, Kang-Che Sung wrote:
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Markus Gothe
wrote:
Actually last time I checked ‘%m’ is POSIX contrary to glibc’s
deprecated '%a’. However, I agree that it should not be used since at
least uClibc can be built without support for it.
How come %m i
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Markus Gothe wrote:
> Actually last time I checked ‘%m’ is POSIX contrary to glibc’s deprecated
> '%a’.
> However, I agree that it should not be used since at least uClibc can be
> built without support for it.
How come %m is POSIX when I didn't see any mention
Hello,
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 14:44:21 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> Can you investigate this further?
> LIBBUSYBOX build results in entire busybox code being put into a library.
>
> nm -D libbusybox.so.1.28.0.git
>
> shows that there are only defined entry points to each applet's main():
>
> 00
18 July 2017 -- BusyBox 1.27.1 (stable)
BusyBox 1.27.1. (git, patches, how to add a patch)
Bug fix release. 1.27.1 has fixes for uuencode (allow space
instead of "`" as padding char), dd (fixed status=none),
setpriv (option parsing should not eat options in PROG ARGS),
fix for "applet (for exampl
Actually last time I checked ‘%m’ is POSIX contrary to glibc’s deprecated '%a’.
However, I agree that it should not be used since at least uClibc can be built
without support for it.
BR,
Markus - The panama-hat hacker
On 17 Jul 2017, at 04:01 , Kang-Che Sung wrote:
> I wonder if there's a bett
Applied, thanks!
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Ron Yorston wrote:
> One of the tests for printf checks for an invalid bare '%' in the
> format string:
>
>$ busybox printf '%' a b c
>printf: %: invalid format
>
> On x86_64 a slightly different test doesn't work correctly:
>
>$ busy
One of the tests for printf checks for an invalid bare '%' in the
format string:
$ busybox printf '%' a b c
printf: %: invalid format
On x86_64 a slightly different test doesn't work correctly:
$ busybox printf '%' d e f
printf: invalid number 'd'
printf: invalid number 'e'
pri