Re: removal of kill?

On 11/10/2015 12:54 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > For these reasons I might just keep the test cleanups > from my previous patch but continue to build kill by default? +1 >From a packager's point of view, it's very easy to either use --enable-no-install-program=... or simply to remove the binary and

Re: removal of kill?

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > bash-4.4 on Gentoo certainly supports `kill -L`. > -mike My apologies; In my haste I forgot to check which version of Bash I was running. Mike

Re: removal of kill?

On 09 Nov 2015 17:02, Bernhard Voelker wrote: > On 11/09/2015 04:27 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > > I see on most GNU/Linux distros that kill(1) is > > provided by the shell or util-linux. > > Should we just remove it from coreutils? > > What about non-Linux systems, i.e., where util-linux is not > a

Re: removal of kill?

On 09 Nov 2015 15:34, Mike Hodson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Tomas Nordin wrote: > > For whatever it's worth: > > > > $ uname -a > > Linux debian 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.2.68-1+deb7u1 i686 GNU/Linux > > It's not just Debian; Sabayon, and as such presumed Gentoo proper, > bot

Re: removal of kill?

On 09/11/15 19:20, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 09/11/15 16:58, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> On 09/11/15 16:48, Jim Meyering wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: On 09/11/15 16:02, Bernhard Voelker wrote: > On 11/09/2015 04:27 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> I see on mo

Re: removal of kill?

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Tomas Nordin wrote: > For whatever it's worth: > > $ uname -a > Linux debian 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.2.68-1+deb7u1 i686 GNU/Linux It's not just Debian; Sabayon, and as such presumed Gentoo proper, both have a BASH which doesn't include the -L mnemonic, but

Re: removal of kill?

For whatever it's worth: $ uname -a Linux debian 3.2.0-4-686-pae #1 SMP Debian 3.2.68-1+deb7u1 i686 GNU/Linux $ which kill /bin/kill $ kill -L bash: kill: L: invalid signal specification $ /bin/kill -L 1 HUP 2 INT 3 QUIT 4 ILL 5 TRAP 6 ABRT 7 BUS 8 FPE 9 KILL1

Re: removal of kill?

2015-11-09 15:27:41 +, Pádraig Brady: > I see on most GNU/Linux distros that kill(1) is > provided by the shell or util-linux. > Should we just remove it from coreutils? > > We might move 'kill' to the disabled_by_default_progs > list in build-aux/gen-lists-of-programs.sh, > but I'm thinking

Re: removal of kill?

On 09/11/15 16:58, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 09/11/15 16:48, Jim Meyering wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >>> On 09/11/15 16:02, Bernhard Voelker wrote: On 11/09/2015 04:27 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > I see on most GNU/Linux distros that kill(1) is > prov

Re: removal of kill?

On 09/11/15 16:48, Jim Meyering wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> On 09/11/15 16:02, Bernhard Voelker wrote: >>> On 11/09/2015 04:27 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: I see on most GNU/Linux distros that kill(1) is provided by the shell or util-linux. Should we

Re: removal of kill?

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 09/11/15 16:02, Bernhard Voelker wrote: >> On 11/09/2015 04:27 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >>> I see on most GNU/Linux distros that kill(1) is >>> provided by the shell or util-linux. >>> Should we just remove it from coreutils? >> >> What abo

Re: removal of kill?

On 11/09/2015 09:14 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> I would be inclined to retain it one way or the other, since some people >> surely require it, either because they choose not to, or simply >> cannot, install an alternate package that provides it. > > Maybe. It would be good to see example though.

Re: removal of kill?

On 09/11/15 15:53, Jim Meyering wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> I see on most GNU/Linux distros that kill(1) is >> provided by the shell or util-linux. >> Should we just remove it from coreutils? >> >> We might move 'kill' to the disabled_by_default_progs >> list i

Re: removal of kill?

On 09/11/15 16:02, Bernhard Voelker wrote: > On 11/09/2015 04:27 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> I see on most GNU/Linux distros that kill(1) is >> provided by the shell or util-linux. >> Should we just remove it from coreutils? > > What about non-Linux systems, i.e., where util-linux is not > availab

Re: removal of kill?

On 11/09/2015 04:27 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: I see on most GNU/Linux distros that kill(1) is provided by the shell or util-linux. Should we just remove it from coreutils? What about non-Linux systems, i.e., where util-linux is not available? I personally don't have such a system, but I think G

Re: removal of kill?

On Mon, Nov 9, 2015 at 7:27 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > I see on most GNU/Linux distros that kill(1) is > provided by the shell or util-linux. > Should we just remove it from coreutils? > > We might move 'kill' to the disabled_by_default_progs > list in build-aux/gen-lists-of-programs.sh, > but I'm

removal of kill?

I see on most GNU/Linux distros that kill(1) is provided by the shell or util-linux. Should we just remove it from coreutils? We might move 'kill' to the disabled_by_default_progs list in build-aux/gen-lists-of-programs.sh, but I'm thinking we should do like we did with su and just remove it? Wha

Re: mkdir and ls display

On 09/11/15 14:54, Ngô Huy wrote: > Dear Padraig, > > 2015-11-09 18:20 GMT+07:00 Pádraig Brady >: > > On 09/11/15 08:30, Ngô Huy wrote: > > Dear guys, > > > > I had problem with mkdir and ls when I used command: > > > > mkdir "* /" && mkdir "*

Re: mkdir and ls display

Dear Padraig, 2015-11-09 18:20 GMT+07:00 Pádraig Brady : > On 09/11/15 08:30, Ngô Huy wrote: > > Dear guys, > > > > I had problem with mkdir and ls when I used command: > > > > mkdir "* /" && mkdir "* /etc" && ls. > > > > It only displayed *. > > Note as yet unreleased version of ls will use shel

Re: mkdir and ls display

2015-11-09 11:20:20 +, Pádraig Brady: [...] > In any case you can use `find ... -print0 | xargs -0` > to handle that. [...] Note that that is the FreeBSD syntax, with GNU xargs, you need: find ... -print0 | xargs -r0 ... So that ... be not executed when find produces no output. Or you can u

Re: mkdir and ls display

On 09/11/15 08:30, Ngô Huy wrote: > Dear guys, > > I had problem with mkdir and ls when I used command: > > mkdir "* /" && mkdir "* /etc" && ls. > > It only displayed *. Note as yet unreleased version of ls will use shell quoting to give a less ambiguous output: $ ls '* ' > But > > find . -t

mkdir and ls display

Dear guys, I had problem with mkdir and ls when I used command: mkdir "* /" && mkdir "* /etc" && ls. It only displayed *. But find . -type -d -print display ./* /etc. If we have hidden directory and use xargs with find to execute some command, it's security risk. Should we patch it's behavio