Re: libgparted bug.

On Sun 11 Feb 2018 at 17:07:03 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Sunday 11 February 2018 15:31:13 Brian wrote: > > > linuxcnc is an Xfce based system and that DE does the automounting. It > > is not usbmount or 60-persistent-storage.rules. I'm fairly sure there > > is a way of turning it off but

Re: libgparted bug.

On Sunday 11 February 2018 15:31:13 Brian wrote: > On Sun 11 Feb 2018 at 11:08:23 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Sunday 11 February 2018 10:19:16 David Wright wrote: > > > On Sun 11 Feb 2018 at 00:01:26 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > I don't believe usbmount did this one, > > > >

Re: libgparted bug.

On Sunday 11 February 2018 12:35:54 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Gene Heskett wrote: > > The real problem is of coarse that there has not ever been 2 > > identical sd cards made, so a dd image to the end of the card A, > > will not ever install that image on another supposedly identical > >

Re: libgparted bug.

On Sun 11 Feb 2018 at 11:08:23 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Sunday 11 February 2018 10:19:16 David Wright wrote: […] > > On Sun 11 Feb 2018 at 00:01:26 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > I don't believe usbmount did this one, 60-persistent-storage.rule I > > > think did this one as I only

Re: libgparted bug.

On Sun 11 Feb 2018 at 11:08:23 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Sunday 11 February 2018 10:19:16 David Wright wrote: > > > On Sun 11 Feb 2018 at 00:01:26 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > I don't believe usbmount did this one, 60-persistent-storage.rule I > > > think did this one as I only kill

Re: libgparted bug.

Hi, Gene Heskett wrote: > The real problem is of coarse that there has not ever been 2 identical sd > cards made, so a dd image to the end of the card A, will not ever > install that image on another supposedly identical card B or C, they are > NOT the same size except in the salespersons

Re: libgparted bug.

On Sunday 11 February 2018 10:19:16 David Wright wrote: > On Sun 11 Feb 2018 at 00:01:26 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Saturday 10 February 2018 23:34:12 David Wright wrote: > > > On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 22:06:05 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > On Saturday 10 February 2018 18:04:30 Brian

Re: libgparted bug.

On Sun 11 Feb 2018 at 00:01:26 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Saturday 10 February 2018 23:34:12 David Wright wrote: > > > On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 22:06:05 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > On Saturday 10 February 2018 18:04:30 Brian wrote: > > > > On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 16:09:00 -0500, Gene

Re: libgparted bug.

On Sunday 11 February 2018 06:23:35 deloptes wrote: > Gene Heskett wrote: > > /etc/usbmount/usbmount.conf.  And it has exactly the switch I was > > looking for. So ATM its turned off. But damn! I just now plugged in > > the cell phone and the icon popped up in about a second. But I guess > >

Re: libgparted bug.

Gene Heskett wrote: > I don't believe usbmount did this one, 60-persistent-storage.rule I think > did this one as I only kill sdd, and the phone, if the card reader (sdd) > is plugged in would have made the phone be sdf. I don't think you need usbmount at all, but I am not at 100% sure for

Re: libgparted bug.

Gene Heskett wrote: > /etc/usbmount/usbmount.conf.  And it has exactly the switch I was looking > for. So ATM its turned off. But damn! I just now plugged in the cell > phone and the icon popped up in about a second. But I guess thats > because I didn't block it for sdf. > The icon itself is

Re: libgparted bug.

On Saturday 10 February 2018 23:34:12 David Wright wrote: > On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 22:06:05 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Saturday 10 February 2018 18:04:30 Brian wrote: > > > On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 16:09:00 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > On Saturday 10 February 2018 15:27:09 David Wright

Re: libgparted bug.

On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 22:06:05 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Saturday 10 February 2018 18:04:30 Brian wrote: > > > On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 16:09:00 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > On Saturday 10 February 2018 15:27:09 David Wright wrote: > > > > On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 15:08:58 (-0500), Gene

Re: libgparted bug.

On Saturday 10 February 2018 18:04:30 Brian wrote: > On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 16:09:00 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Saturday 10 February 2018 15:27:09 David Wright wrote: > > > On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 15:08:58 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > On Saturday 10 February 2018 11:57:38 David Wright

Re: libgparted bug.

On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 16:09:00 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Saturday 10 February 2018 15:27:09 David Wright wrote: > > > On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 15:08:58 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > On Saturday 10 February 2018 11:57:38 David Wright wrote: > > > > On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 09:10:40 (-0500),

Re: libgparted bug.

On Saturday 10 February 2018 15:27:09 David Wright wrote: > On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 15:08:58 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Saturday 10 February 2018 11:57:38 David Wright wrote: > > > On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 09:10:40 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > And despite my emasculation of udev,

Re: libgparted bug.

On Saturday 10 February 2018 15:12:21 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > i proposed (poking with a long stick in the fog): > > > dd if=/dev/sdd bs=512 skip=16500703 count=66 \ > > > of=rock-img-shrunk.img seek=16500703 > > Gene Heskett wrote: > > Which was an instant return claiming 66 blocks

Re: libgparted bug.

On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 15:08:58 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Saturday 10 February 2018 11:57:38 David Wright wrote: > > > Package: usbmount > > > > Description-en: automatically mount and unmount USB mass storage > > devices > > > > This package automatically mounts USB mass storage devices

Re: libgparted bug.

On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 15:08:58 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Saturday 10 February 2018 11:57:38 David Wright wrote: > > > On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 09:10:40 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > And despite my emasculation of udev, disabling sdd, according to the > > > syslog, usbmount is still auto

Re: libgparted bug.

Hi, i proposed (poking with a long stick in the fog): > > dd if=/dev/sdd bs=512 skip=16500703 count=66 \ > > of=rock-img-shrunk.img seek=16500703 Gene Heskett wrote: > Which was an instant return claiming 66 blocks had been copied. Yeah. Fast. But sufficient only if i did not

Re: libgparted bug.

On Saturday 10 February 2018 11:57:38 David Wright wrote: > On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 09:10:40 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > And despite my emasculation of udev, disabling sdd, according to the > > syslog, usbmount is still auto mounting these cards, all 3 of them. > > So if I plan on working with

Re: libgparted bug.

On Saturday 10 February 2018 10:53:25 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > and again a miscalculation by differing block sizes. > > The adventurous proposal would be useless because working somewhere > in the still undamaged part of the image file. > skip= and seek= must be the numbers for blocks of

Re: libgparted bug.

On Sat 10 Feb 2018 at 09:10:40 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > And despite my emasculation of udev, disabling sdd, according to the > syslog, usbmount is still auto mounting these cards, all 3 of them. So > if I plan on working with these images on this machine with gparted, I > imagine I had

Re: libgparted bug.

Hi, and again a miscalculation by differing block sizes. The adventurous proposal would be useless because working somewhere in the still undamaged part of the image file. skip= and seek= must be the numbers for blocks of 512 bytes rather than of 64 KiB. So this proposal should have been dd

Re: libgparted bug.

Hi, Gene Heskett wrote: > Warning! Secondary partition table overlaps the last partition by > 33 blocks! Sorry, my mistake. I should have staid with my first rough estimation of 8 GiB = 131072 * 64 KiB. Actually i missed the safe size by just one chunk of 64 KiB. 128913 would have been enough.

Re: libgparted bug.

On Saturday 10 February 2018 03:57:57 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > i wrote: > > > your count=122070 was too small. It should have been 128912. > > Gene Heskett wrote: > > the backup GPT table, if it exists, is actually at the end > > of the disk, after another 50Gb of of 's. But how do I

Re: libgparted bug.

On Saturday 10 February 2018 02:55:08 deloptes wrote: > David Wright wrote: > > Well, as I explained, I don't use a DE so I wouldn't have a clue. > > There presumably are people here who use TDE. I see it mentioned > > a lot. > > I use the 14.1 - DEV version, but also in previous one I have never

Re: libgparted bug.

Hi, i wrote: > > your count=122070 was too small. It should have been 128912. Gene Heskett wrote: > the backup GPT table, if it exists, is actually at the end > of the disk, after another 50Gb of of 's. But how do I "fix" the > file? Partition editors suitable for GPT are supposed to be

Re: libgparted bug.

David Wright wrote: > Well, as I explained, I don't use a DE so I wouldn't have a clue. > There presumably are people here who use TDE. I see it mentioned > a lot. I use the 14.1 - DEV version, but also in previous one I have never experienced automounting. Could be that Gene installed automount

Re: libgparted bug.

On Friday 09 February 2018 14:37:16 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > your count=122070 was too small. It should have been 128912. See > below. > > Gene Heskett wrote: > > gene@coyote:~/rock64.imgs$ /sbin/gdisk -l rock-img-shrunk.img > > [...] > > Caution: invalid backup GPT header, but valid main

Re: libgparted bug.

On Friday 09 February 2018 14:28:15 Brian wrote: > On Fri 09 Feb 2018 at 10:52:08 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Fri, 09 Feb 2018, Gene Heskett wrote: > > > I killed udev for /dev/sdd, gparted works now. But I really need a > > > quicker way than editing a udev rule. I wonder if I could make

Re: libgparted bug.

On Friday 09 February 2018 14:11:27 Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 09 February 2018 13:56:35 David Wright wrote: > > On Fri 09 Feb 2018 at 12:34:05 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > On Friday 09 February 2018 11:50:46 David Wright wrote: > > > > On Fri 09 Feb 2018 at 04:20:51 (-0500), Gene

Re: libgparted bug.

On Fri 09 Feb 2018 at 14:11:27 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 09 February 2018 13:56:35 David Wright wrote: > > > On Fri 09 Feb 2018 at 12:34:05 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > On Friday 09 February 2018 11:50:46 David Wright wrote: > > > > On Fri 09 Feb 2018 at 04:20:51 (-0500),

Re: libgparted bug.

Hi, your count=122070 was too small. It should have been 128912. See below. Gene Heskett wrote: > gene@coyote:~/rock64.imgs$ /sbin/gdisk -l rock-img-shrunk.img > [...] > Caution: invalid backup GPT header, but valid main header; regenerating > backup header from main header. You cut off ~ 56

Re: libgparted bug.

On Fri 09 Feb 2018 at 10:52:08 -0800, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Fri, 09 Feb 2018, Gene Heskett wrote: > > I killed udev for /dev/sdd, gparted works now. But I really need a > > quicker way than editing a udev rule. I wonder if I could make udev > > aware that gparted was running. > > udev

Re: libgparted bug.

On Friday 09 February 2018 13:56:35 David Wright wrote: > On Fri 09 Feb 2018 at 12:34:05 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Friday 09 February 2018 11:50:46 David Wright wrote: > > > On Fri 09 Feb 2018 at 04:20:51 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > On Friday 09 February 2018 04:11:42 Thomas

Re: libgparted bug.

On Friday 09 February 2018 13:13:42 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Gene Heskett wrote: > > When did fdisk learn about GPT part tables? > > Dunno. It recognizes GPT by type "ee" of the "Protective MBR" entry in > > the partition table of the MBR: > > Device Boot Start

Re: libgparted bug.

On Fri 09 Feb 2018 at 12:34:05 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 09 February 2018 11:50:46 David Wright wrote: > > > On Fri 09 Feb 2018 at 04:20:51 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > > On Friday 09 February 2018 04:11:42 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Gene Heskett wrote: >

Re: libgparted bug.

On Fri, 09 Feb 2018, Gene Heskett wrote: > I killed udev for /dev/sdd, gparted works now. But I really need a > quicker way than editing a udev rule. I wonder if I could make udev > aware that gparted was running. udev doesn't automount by default;[1] it's likely just exposing the fact that a

Re: libgparted bug.

Hi, correcting myself: > > /dev/sdd 1 32768 125042687625049607 HPFS/NTFS/exFAT > This is probably an unpartitioned "disk" with MS-Windows filesystem. The "1" probably is the partition number. I mistook it for the boot flag. So the stick is partitioned with one partition.

Re: libgparted bug.

Hi, Gene Heskett wrote: > When did fdisk learn about GPT part tables? Dunno. It recognizes GPT by type "ee" of the "Protective MBR" entry in the partition table of the MBR: > Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System > rock-img-shrunk.img 1 1

Re: libgparted bug.

On Friday 09 February 2018 11:50:46 David Wright wrote: > On Fri 09 Feb 2018 at 04:20:51 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Friday 09 February 2018 04:11:42 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Gene Heskett wrote: > > > > That is not the problem, something is automounting the partition >

Re: libgparted bug.

On Friday 09 February 2018 11:01:38 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > > # skip rules for inappropriate block devices > > KERNEL=="fd*|mtd*|nbd*|gnbd*|btibm*|dm-*|md*|sdd", > > GOTO="persistent_storage_end" > > That's a neighbor of where i once stopped to experiment. > So now: > >

Re: libgparted bug.

On Fri 09 Feb 2018 at 04:20:51 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 09 February 2018 04:11:42 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > Gene Heskett wrote: > > > That is not the problem, something is automounting the partition as > > > soon as gparted unmounts the SOB, so by the time you start

Re: libgparted bug.

Hi, > # skip rules for inappropriate block devices > KERNEL=="fd*|mtd*|nbd*|gnbd*|btibm*|dm-*|md*|sdd", > GOTO="persistent_storage_end" That's a neighbor of where i once stopped to experiment. So now: KERNEL=="fd*|mtd*|nbd*|gnbd*|btibm*|dm-*|md*|zram*|mmcblk[0-9]*rpmb|sr4",

Re: libgparted bug.

On Friday 09 February 2018 05:17:35 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > > Got the sonofabitch, I added sdd to the ignore line > > in /lib/udev/rules.d/60-persistent-storage.rules. > > What exactly did you do ? > ("ignore line" does not give me insight when looking at the file.) > > > I wonder if I

Re: libgparted bug.

Hi, > Got the sonofabitch, I added sdd to the ignore line > in /lib/udev/rules.d/60-persistent-storage.rules. What exactly did you do ? ("ignore line" does not give me insight when looking at the file.) > I wonder if I could make udev > aware that gparted was running. That would be ideal.

Re: libgparted bug.

On Friday 09 February 2018 04:11:42 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Gene Heskett wrote: > > That is not the problem, something is automounting the partition as > > soon as gparted unmounts the SOB, so by the time you start the > > resize, its mounted again and gparted is locked out. > > If

Re: libgparted bug.

On Friday 09 February 2018 03:52:05 Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 09 February 2018 03:05:23 deloptes wrote: > > Gene Heskett wrote: > > > Trying to make a backup image of a 64GB bootable sdcard. Th os say > > > its 59.b GB when it mounts the original, but pull copy to a file > > > and its

Re: libgparted bug.

Hi, Gene Heskett wrote: > That is not the problem, something is automounting the partition as soon > as gparted unmounts the SOB, so by the time you start the resize, its > mounted again and gparted is locked out. If explicit unmounting does not help, and if manual execution of the gparted

Re: libgparted bug.

On Friday 09 February 2018 03:33:38 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Gene Heskett wrote: > > Th os say its 59.b GB when it mounts the original > > [...] > > gene@coyote:~/rock64.imgs$ dd of=/dev/sdd bs=64k > > if=working-rock64.img dd: writing `/dev/sdd': No space left on > > device > > 976897+0

Re: libgparted bug.

On Friday 09 February 2018 03:05:23 deloptes wrote: > Gene Heskett wrote: > > Trying to make a backup image of a 64GB bootable sdcard. Th os say > > its 59.b GB when it mounts the original, but pull copy to a file and > > its nearly a megabyte bigger than 64gigs.  So obviously the file is > >

Re: libgparted bug.

Hi, Gene Heskett wrote: > Th os say its 59.b GB when it mounts the original > [...] > gene@coyote:~/rock64.imgs$ dd of=/dev/sdd bs=64k if=working-rock64.img > dd: writing `/dev/sdd': No space left on device > 976897+0 records in > 976896+0 records out That's the usual confusion between ISO GB (=

Re: libgparted bug.

Gene Heskett wrote: > Trying to make a backup image of a 64GB bootable sdcard. Th os say its > 59.b GB when it mounts the original, but pull copy to a file and its > nearly a megabyte bigger than 64gigs.  So obviously the file is bigger > than a brand new unformatted disk. > Hi Gene, you should

libgparted bug.

Greetings all; Trying to make a backup image of a 64GB bootable sdcard. Th os say its 59.b GB when it mounts the original, but pull copy to a file and its nearly a megabyte bigger than 64gigs. So obviously the file is bigger than a brand new unformatted disk. dd said, when it ran out of room:

Re: Is it appropriate to file this as a bug against php7.0-common?

On Thu, 08 Feb 2018, Dominik Reusser wrote: > [Wed Feb 07 19:43:08.246413 2018] [:error] [pid 14876] [client > 192.168.178.20:46444] PHP Fatal error: Couldn't find implementation for > method \x06::__tostring in Unknown on line 0 This is a known bug in nextcloud: https://github.com/

Is it appropriate to file this as a bug against php7.0-common?

ckages libapache2-mod-php7.0 suggests: pn php-pear -- no debconf information As a side question: Why did my bug-report not make it to the bug tracking system? Greetings, Thanks Dominik

Re: BUG depuis deux versions du noyau de testing

Étienne Mollier a écrit : > Bonsoir, > > Joël Bertrand, le 2018-02-07 : >> Étienne Mollier a écrit : >>> - Pour élargir un peu le spectre, est ce que les autres >>> journaux d'erreur mentionnent d'autres fichiers que >>> mod_reqtimeout.so ou liblber-2.4.so.2.10.8, ou bien est ce >>> que

Re: Bug#889144: systemd 237-1: problem starting dnsmasq

Am 07.02.2018 um 22:12 schrieb Jonathan de Boyne Pollard: > Michael Biebl: > >> If other services depend on dnsmasq, please keep >> https://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=877 in mind >> > Please do not.  It is an erroneous conclusion based upon a faulty > analysis that conflates the readiness

Re: BUG depuis deux versions du noyau de testing

Bonsoir, Joël Bertrand, le 2018-02-07 : > Étienne Mollier a écrit : > > - Pour élargir un peu le spectre, est ce que les autres > > journaux d'erreur mentionnent d'autres fichiers que > > mod_reqtimeout.so ou liblber-2.4.so.2.10.8, ou bien est ce > > que toutes les erreurs tournent autour

Re: BUG depuis deux versions du noyau de testing

a > partition système via fsck, ou l'état du ou des disques > sous-jacents ? La machine est à 500 bornes, je ne peux pas faire cela facilement. Mais je n'ai pas d'erreur dans les logs concernant les disques. > - Sinon, ça pourrait être un bug dans la pile d'appel au système >

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-07 13:17:21 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > On 07/02/18 02:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2018-02-06 14:36:31 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > >> The behaviour and policy of this list, when followed, does what I want. > > > > But the other users cannot know what you want if you do not

Re: Reply semantics (was Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

On 2018-02-06 10:47:30 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-02-06 at 10:00, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > On 2018-02-06 08:49:01 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > > > >> On 2018-02-06 at 08:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > >>> This is not contradictory with the setting of > >>> "Mail-Followup-To:". >

coreutils date behavior (buggy) (was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

-29. According to --debug, it seems that operations on years are done first, then months, then days. But this is not documented in the Coreutils manual. > > zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-02-01 - 1 month + 1 month' > > 2003-02-01 There's a bug on the same subject: https://debbugs

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 07/02/18 02:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-02-06 14:36:31 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: >> On 06/02/18 02:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >>> You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. This is entirely >>> your problem. >> >> I could do that, I'm sure (though I'm not sure how) - but I'd

Re: BUG depuis deux versions du noyau de testing

'ai assez souvent la charge de mon serveur de test qui monte à > plus de 500 (!) avec une occupation CPU de 0 et les logs > remplis de : > > [226324.616534] BUG: Bad page map in process apache2 pte:0080 [...] > [226324.616593] file:mod_reqtimeout.so fault:ext4_filemap_fault [ext4

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 22:55:51 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-02-05 at 13:47, Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 10:24:14 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > > >> If there's an ongoing discussion on that mailing list, and one of > >> the participants wants to draw in a third person who

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

Em 06-02-2018 10:38, Vincent Lefevre escreveu: On 2018-02-06 13:48:19 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: This is completely crazy: zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-09-01 1 day ago + 1 month' 2003-09-30 zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-09-01 1 day ago' 2003-08-31 zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-08-31 + 1

Re: Reply semantics (was Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

On 2018-02-06 at 10:00, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-02-06 08:49:01 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > >> On 2018-02-06 at 08:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >>> This is not contradictory with the setting of >>> "Mail-Followup-To:". >> >> Arguably, if the mailing list does not default replies back to

coreutils date behavior (buggy) (was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

) { > > > > > > > > date +%Y-%m-%d -d "$1 1 day ago + 1 month" > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > But the exact meaning of "month" seems undocumented, which may > > > silently break in a future version

Re: Reply semantics (was Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

On 2018-02-06 08:49:01 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2018-02-06 at 08:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2018-02-06 14:36:31 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > >> On 06/02/18 02:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > >> > >>> You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. This is > >>> entirely your

bash date behavior (buggy) (was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

gt; Anyway, here's what I came up with: > > > > > > lastday() { > > > > > > date +%Y-%m-%d -d "$1 1 day ago + 1 month" > > > > > > } > > > > But the exact meaning of "month" seems undocumented, which may >

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Tue 06 Feb 2018 at 16:38:53 (+1100), Erik Christiansen wrote: > […] is python that monstrosity which > lacks code block delimiting, and so uses indenting in lieu? Nice to see your criticism is so shallow. Cheers, David.

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 04:38:53PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: On 05.02.18 10:02, Michael Stone wrote: IIRC it started out as a YACC function in the late 80s, and is now a Bison (YACC+GNU extensions) library. In that case it has a precise grammar, expressed in BNF (Backus Naur Form),

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

and error. > > > > Anyway, here's what I came up with: > > > > lastday() { > > date +%Y-%m-%d -d "$1 1 day ago + 1 month" > > } > > But the exact meaning of "month" seems undocumented, which may > silently break in a future version (e.g. possibly

Reply semantics (was Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

(I should probably have changed the Subject: line in my initial reply, but I didn't expect it to spark an entire lengthy subthread like this. I apologize for having introduced thread-subject confusion.) On 2018-02-06 at 08:18, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-02-06 14:36:31 +1300, Richard Hector

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

t the exact meaning of "month" seems undocumented, which may > silently break in a future version (e.g. possibly as a consequence > of a bug fix). So this is a good example of what you should *not* > do. If I have the luxury of writing in a real language, then I prefer to use that la

Email discussion (was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

Just changing the subject--maybe someone can make a more specific subject line. On Tuesday, February 06, 2018 08:34:11 AM Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-02-05 18:01:08 +, Brian wrote: > > Now you have problems (or could have). The first problem is that the > > "duplicates" are not

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-06 13:48:19 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > This is completely crazy: > > zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-09-01 1 day ago + 1 month' > 2003-09-30 > zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-09-01 1 day ago' > 2003-08-31 > zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '2003-08-31 + 1 month' > 2003-10-01 > > So, while

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-05 18:01:08 +, Brian wrote: > Now you have problems (or could have). The first problem is that the > "duplicates" are not duplicates because the headers are different. The > second problem is - which one do you wish to keep? The third problem > (related to the second one) is the

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-06 14:36:31 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > On 06/02/18 02:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. This is entirely > > your problem. > > I could do that, I'm sure (though I'm not sure how) - but I'd rather > that someone intending to send me a

Re: [Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-06 12:32:06 +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 05.02.18 09:39, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > (*) One specific shell script use case was "Get the last date of a given > > month." Now, obviously you can just set up an array of hard-coded month > > ending dates, and then write a function to

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

1 day ago + 1 month" > } But the exact meaning of "month" seems undocumented, which may silently break in a future version (e.g. possibly as a consequence of a bug fix). So this is a good example of what you should *not* do. This is completely crazy: zira% date +%Y-%m-%d -d '

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 06.02.18 19:16, Richard Hector wrote: > On 06/02/18 18:38, Erik Christiansen wrote: > > Perl is the quintessential write-only language, which with a bit of luck > > will die out before it catches on > > Now you're getting to fighting talk ... :-) Whoops, forgot the <$0.02> ... markers. But

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-06, David Wright wrote: > > Ah, OK, the timestamps. There's no need to worry about that. Every > email I send to my wife, sitting at the same table, crosses the > Atlantic twice, typically in under a minute, and sometimes much less. > You're not on speaking

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-06, The Wanderer wrote: >> Which brings us back to - how does one know someone is subscribed to >> a Debian mailing list? > > I still fail to see why that's something we would need to know. > > Whether or not the person who posted a given message is subscribed

Re: [Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

>> I promise you, people ARE using date -d '...' in shell scripts. >> LOTS of people. Hell, I've done it.(*) The Java Gregorian Calendar class was a delightful piece of software when I last used it (15 or so years ago). It does know the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars,

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 06/02/18 18:38, Erik Christiansen wrote: > Perl is the quintessential write-only language, which with a bit of luck > will die out before it catches on Now you're getting to fighting talk ... :-) Richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 05.02.18 10:02, Michael Stone wrote: > IIRC it started out as a YACC function in the late 80s, and is now a Bison > (YACC+GNU extensions) library. In that case it has a precise grammar, expressed in BNF (Backus Naur Form), though the lexer (I've always used lex together with yacc/bison) could

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 2018-02-05 at 13:47, Brian wrote: > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 10:24:14 -0500, The Wanderer wrote: >> If there's an ongoing discussion on that mailing list, and one of >> the participants wants to draw in a third person who also >> subscribes, it's entirely appropriate to CC a reply to that third

Reply to sender, Reply to list (was: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag)

Richard Hector writes: > On 06/02/18 02:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2018-02-05 01:53:02 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: > > You should set up a "Mail-Followup-To:" for that. For reference, this refers to one of two proposed (but never standardised) fields

Re: [Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

le to the date(1) > discussion, note that ncal was introduced so cal could remain > bug-compatible. Well, as the OP, to bring it properly full circle, I should be clear that I'm mostly happy with the reasons for not fixing these 'bugs'. I would just like to have seen the reason with the wontfi

Re: [Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

he cutover dates in the 16th century. But at least ncal tries. :) To bring things full circle to the date(1) discussion, note that ncal was introduced so cal could remain bug-compatible. Mike Stone

Re: [Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 06/02/18 15:24, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:32:06PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: >> And for the far past, cal is superior; compare: >> >> $ cal -3 9 1752 >>    August 1752  September 1752 October 1752 >> Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa  Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa  Su Mo

Re: [Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon, Feb 05, 2018 at 08:13:10PM -0600, David Wright wrote: But how would you deal with the simplest (to express) problem of all, that of $ date -d 1/2/18 Tue Jan 2 00:00:00 CST 2018 $ which would mean a battery of locale-specific rules. Yup. You'd need to accept something (probably

Re: [Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 12:32:06PM +1100, Erik Christiansen wrote: And for the far past, cal is superior; compare: $ cal -3 9 1752 August 1752 September 1752 October 1752 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 1 2 14 15

Re: [Was: Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Tue 06 Feb 2018 at 12:32:06 (+1100), Erik Christiansen wrote: > On 05.02.18 09:39, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 04, 2018 at 04:04:34PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote: > > > All you describe is convenience for programmatic use. As I explained, > > > this parser is meant for interactive use.

Re: BUG depuis deux versions du noyau de testing

Le Mon, 5 Feb 2018 23:22:37 +0100, BERTRAND Joël a écrit : > Bonjour à tous, > > Est-ce que je suis le seul à avoir des problèmes avec les > noyaux de testing ? J'ai assez souvent la charge de mon serveur de > test qui monte à plus de 500 (!) avec une

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 23:39:30 (+), Brian wrote: > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 15:42:32 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 19:37:45 (+), Brian wrote: > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 13:12:45 -0600, David Wright wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon 05 Feb 2018 at 18:01:08 (+), Brian

Re: policy around 'wontfix' bug tag

On 06/02/18 02:11, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2018-02-05 01:53:02 +1300, Richard Hector wrote: >> On 05/02/18 01:44, Nicolas George wrote: PS - please don't cc me; I'm on the list. >>> Done this once, but I cannot promise I will think of it later. Document >>> your preference in your mail

<    8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   >