Re: RFC: [PATCH] build: Option for building all tools in a single binary

2014-06-09 Thread Eric Blake
On 06/08/2014 04:33 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: On 06/07/2014 09:37 PM, Alex Deymo wrote: Add the --enable-single-binary option to the configure file. When enabled, this option builds a single binary file with all the selected tools in it. Which tools gets executed depends on the value of

Re: RFC: [PATCH] build: Option for building all tools in a single binary

2014-06-09 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 06/09/2014 02:14 PM, Eric Blake wrote: On 06/08/2014 04:33 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: On 06/07/2014 09:37 PM, Alex Deymo wrote: Add the --enable-single-binary option to the configure file. When enabled, this option builds a single binary file with all the selected tools in it. Which tools

Re: RFC: [PATCH] build: Option for building all tools in a single binary

2014-06-09 Thread Alex Deymo
On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com wrote: This seems like a very useful option, thanks! Yes given that there are around 100 utils, amalgamation like this reduces overhead significantly. For a change this size we'd need copyright assignment though. Does your

Re: RFC: [PATCH] build: Option for building all tools in a single binary

2014-06-09 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 06/09/2014 05:18 PM, Alex Deymo wrote: On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com wrote: This seems like a very useful option, thanks! Yes given that there are around 100 utils, amalgamation like this reduces overhead significantly. For a change this size we'd need

Re: RFC: [PATCH] build: Option for building all tools in a single binary

2014-06-09 Thread Pádraig Brady
On 06/09/2014 05:56 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: On 06/09/2014 05:18 PM, Alex Deymo wrote: On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 3:33 AM, Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com wrote: This seems like a very useful option, thanks! Yes given that there are around 100 utils, amalgamation like this reduces overhead

date fails to parse seconds and nanoseconds

2014-06-09 Thread Kasza Péter
Date can't seem to parse seconds (or nanoseconds) when they are immedately after another term. E.g. trying to parse the string 20140609T150610 (2014-06-09-15:06:10) fails. % date +%Y%m%dT%H%M%S -d 20140609T150610 date: invalid date ‘20140609T150610’ The date parses correctly, if the seconds