Re: [PATCH] copy: adjust fiemap handling of sparse files

2011-03-31 Thread Jim Meyering
Pádraig Brady wrote: ... I'm going to use this 2.6.38 check to only enable FIEMAP_FLAG_SYNC before Linux kernel 2.6.38. It's always worth avoiding sync if possible. Proposed patch attached. I'll submit my 3 outstanding fiemap patches tomorrow. ... Subject: [PATCH] copy: with fiemap copy,

[PATCH] tests: inotify-rotate: avoid race condition with overloaded disk

2011-03-31 Thread Jim Meyering
FYI, From 0ec711b5c4c5094fa206115a666e5878f463a07f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 18:56:47 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] tests: inotify-rotate: avoid race condition with overloaded disk * tests/tail-2/inotify-rotate: Wait 50% longer for grep to

bug#8394: unexpected behaviour of sort -n

2011-03-31 Thread Toralf Förster
I'm wondering about the output b/c Im missing 2 strings : $ echo X y z 1 2 3 | xargs -n 1 | sort -n -u X 1 2 3 -- MfG/Sincerely Toralf Förster pgp finger print: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 7DB6 9DA3

bug#8391: chmod setuid setguid bits

2011-03-31 Thread Christian
Why can I only use symbolic modes for clearing ? snip chmod(1) --- and you can set (but not clear) the bits with a numeric mode. snip chmod(1) --- isn't chmod 0755 DIR explicit enough ? Cheer -- Christian --- Der ultimative shop für

bug#8391: chmod setuid setguid bits

2011-03-31 Thread Eric Blake
On 03/31/2011 03:01 AM, Christian wrote: Why can I only use symbolic modes for clearing ? snip chmod(1) --- and you can set (but not clear) the bits with a numeric mode. snip chmod(1) --- isn't chmod 0755 DIR explicit enough ? Thanks for the report. However, this is not a bug.

bug#8374: cp -a [-l] sometimes does not preserve timestamps of symlinks

2011-03-31 Thread Eric Blake
[adding bug-gnulib] On 03/31/2011 08:11 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: So probably -al is broken since you fixed -a in 7.5. 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:

bug#8375: cp -a [-l] sometimes does not preserve timestamps of symlinks

2011-03-31 Thread Pádraig Brady
tags 8375 + notabug closing this cloned bug

bug#8374: cp -a [-l] sometimes does not preserve timestamps of symlinks

2011-03-31 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 29/03/11 14:46, Ruediger Meier wrote: Hi, I see you fixed that already for for cp -a http://marc.info/?t=12489708961r=1w=2 But it does not together with option -link: cd /tmp/ ln -s somewhere symlink touch -h -t 19700101 symlink cp -a symlink symlink-a cp -al symlink

bug#8374: cp -a [-l] sometimes does not preserve timestamps of symlinks

2011-03-31 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 31/03/11 15:20, Eric Blake wrote: Sounds to me like the gnulib fallback should be made smarter. Which systems lack linkat() but have the capability to set timestamps? BSD? But the original report was about opensuse, which is Linux based, and my recollection is that Linux handles hardlinks

bug#8391: chmod setuid setguid bits

2011-03-31 Thread Christian
Hi Eric, Am 31.03.2011 19:29, schrieb Eric Blake: On 03/31/2011 03:01 AM, Christian wrote: Why can I only use symbolic modes for clearing ? snip chmod(1) --- and you can set (but not clear) the bits with a numeric mode. snip chmod(1) --- isn't chmod 0755 DIR explicit enough ? Thanks

bug#8391: chmod setuid setguid bits

2011-03-31 Thread Eric Blake
On 03/31/2011 12:25 PM, Christian wrote: IMHO for removing s-gid-bit from drwxr-sr-x 2 root root 48 2011-03-31 18:13 tmp/ u=rwx,g=rx-s,o=rx == 0755 and using 0755 is explicit enough, isn't it ? No, because not everyone realizes that chmod takes octal automatically, and they might have

bug#8391: chmod setuid setguid bits

2011-03-31 Thread 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 having 0755 mean something different from 755 would violate the principle of least surprise. Please see the thread starting at

bug#8391: chmod setuid setguid bits

2011-03-31 Thread Eric Blake
On 03/31/2011 12:54 PM, 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 surprise. Please see the thread

bug#8391: chmod setuid setguid bits

2011-03-31 Thread Christian
Hi Paul, 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 having 0755 mean something different from 755 would violate the principle of least surprise. Please see the thread

bug#8391: chmod setuid setguid bits

2011-03-31 Thread Eric Blake
On 03/31/2011 01:58 PM, Christian wrote: Hi Paul, 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 having 0755 mean something different from 755 would violate the

bug#8391: chmod setuid setguid bits

2011-03-31 Thread Christian
Hi No, 0755 is not explicit - it is ambiguous with people that are explicitly using printf %#3o to output a 3-digit octal string with leading 0 - I don't think we can change this. But my suggestion of 00755 _is_ explicit - after taking off the leading 00755 is working here. I can live with

bug#8391: chmod setuid setguid bits

2011-03-31 Thread Eric Blake
On 03/31/2011 02:15 PM, Eric Blake wrote: I also don't know how many of the implementations are technically right - POSIX allows a wide range of acceptable behavior, but did require that the particular behavior used be documented (not like anyone wants to read documentation for multiple