On 24 May 2011 02:17, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> On 23 May 2011 23:51, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>> Sorry, I assumed he was talking about --long-options. I use -- pretty
>> regularly and will probably wind up patching it in if it's missing.
>
> In a moment of uncharacteristic pragmatism, I've decided
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> Looking forward to it. imo we need a new editor...
I like this:
http://www.stabie-soft.com/sre/re.html
it's no sam, but for short one-off edits (or even as a pager) I like it.
--
# Kurt H Maier
On 23 May 2011 19:53, Rob wrote:
> I have a gripe about the fread() business - I have to hit ^D twice
> before eof is reported - the first ^D causes fread() to return non-zero,
> with text I entered previously, the second ^D causes fread() to return 0.
> Probably not a major problem but here's a p
On 23 May 2011 23:51, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> Sorry, I assumed he was talking about --long-options. I use -- pretty
> regularly and will probably wind up patching it in if it's missing.
In a moment of uncharacteristic pragmatism, I've decided for these
tools it's probably best to use getopt. Not u
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Robert Ransom wrote:
> The point of the “--” ‘flag’ is to tell the program to not interpret
> following arguments as options.
Sorry, I assumed he was talking about --long-options. I use -- pretty
regularly and will probably wind up patching it in if it's missing.
On Mon, 23 May 2011 16:27:16 -0400
Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius
> wrote:
> > On 5/23/11, Rob wrote:
> >> One more thing, we're not bothering with the -- flag, are we?
> > We should, if only for the sake of portable scripts. We may not need
> > or wan
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Bjartur Thorlacius
wrote:
> On 5/23/11, Rob wrote:
>> One more thing, we're not bothering with the -- flag, are we?
> We should, if only for the sake of portable scripts. We may not need
> or want full POSIX, but we should at least support general conventions
> us
Maybe you are interested in:
http://hg.youterm.com/smash
On 23/05/2011, at 21:08, Bjartur Thorlacius wrote:
> On 5/23/11, Rob wrote:
>> One more thing, we're not bothering with the -- flag, are we?
> We should, if only for the sake of portable scripts. We may not need
> or want full POSIX, but
On 5/23/11, Rob wrote:
> One more thing, we're not bothering with the -- flag, are we?
We should, if only for the sake of portable scripts. We may not need
or want full POSIX, but we should at least support general conventions
used by properly written scripts.
> Finally, I have an editor in the w
I have a gripe about the fread() business - I have to hit ^D twice
before eof is reported - the first ^D causes fread() to return non-zero,
with text I entered previously, the second ^D causes fread() to return 0.
Probably not a major problem but here's a patch if anyone's interested.
Also rm.c
I
I've just created a repo at http://hg.suckless.org/sbase
I'll get around to adding others' contributions soon. Note that I'll
likely reformat them a little to make sure all the tools have a
consistent style. It's important that they all look and behave alike.
Thanks,
cls
You can just remove the local variable, it's only used once.
I would suggest linking all those .c in a single binary like busybox
does. that would make it slight if you want it to compile it statically.
btw. anybody is gonna upload all this stuff into the hg?
On 05/23/11 08:27, Kamil Cholewiń
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:42 AM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> scripts will break
>
> (eg autoconf generated scripts depend on all sort of flags
> and lot of software uses autoconf..)
if you want gnu coreutils, you know where to find it.
--
# Kurt H Maier
This makes lsx a bit more usable.
Signed-off-by: Petr Sabata
---
lsx.c | 38 +++---
1 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lsx.c b/lsx.c
index 5060b9c..7fa5e35 100644
--- a/lsx.c
+++ b/lsx.c
@@ -8,28 +8,36 @@
#include
#include
-in
Added pwd.
pwd.1
Description: Binary data
/* See LICENSE file for copyright and license details. */
#include
#include
#include
#include "util.h"
int
main(void)
{
char *buf, *p;
long pathsize;
pathsize = pathconf(".", _PC_PATH_MAX);
if (pathsize < 0)
pathsize = BUFSIZ;
buf = malloc(pat
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:05:55AM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>
> On 23 May 2011 04:36, Noah Birnel wrote:
> > Your Makefile, though, is GNU-dependant.
>
> Really, which part? It seems to work with NetBSD make.
>
On FreeBSD, make does
CC -c util.c
and nothing else.
make clean works as
Connor - Sorry. I meant the ones that were useful to the 'cause'.
On an initial read through of that page, I saw sam but missed mk
& rc.
Bryan
Hi,
> So where does this fit in? Okay, this is basically my computing
> tactic: simplifying my operating system to the point where I can
> actually understand what on Earth is going on.
This.
Also, contributing date.c and date.1. Both probably need refinements.
Thanks,
Kamil
/* See LICENSE file
2011/5/23 ilf :
> On 05-23 05:37, Jens Staal wrote:
>>
>> For fun, I have been trying to replace GNU with Busybox:
>> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Base2busybox Heirloom:
>> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Base2heirloom Plan9port:
>> https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Base2plan9
>
> V
On 05-23 05:37, Jens Staal wrote:
For fun, I have been trying to replace GNU with
Busybox: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Base2busybox
Heirloom: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Base2heirloom
Plan9port: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Base2plan9
Very interesting.
Tried these, t
On 23 May 2011 03:33, Bryan Bennett wrote:
> I would suggest first re-writing the ones that 9Base has listed. It seems
> a relatively exhaustive list and - with our case of NIH - we don't want to
> be using anything from another OS entirely, now do we ;)
Some of them, certainly, but we don't need
Hey,
On 23 May 2011 04:36, Noah Birnel wrote:
> Your Makefile, though, is GNU-dependant.
Really, which part? It seems to work with NetBSD make.
On 23 May 2011 09:16, Mate Nagy wrote:
> please, please don't take this as a troll - it's just a personal
> feeling... but I do feel that the suckless
On 23 May 2011 10:16, Mate Nagy wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 03:15:43AM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
>> I think it's about time we started a minimalist, statically linked set
>> of core utilities. The BSD family are bloated, and the GNU monstrous.
>> Some of us seem to be resorting to using
* Connor Lane Smith [2011-05-23 03:15:43 +0100]:
> thumb is to only include flags present in both POSIX and Plan 9, thus
> making a sweet little subset. There are exceptions to this, like grep
scripts will break
(eg autoconf generated scripts depend on all sort of flags
and lot of software uses
Hi,
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 03:15:43AM +0100, Connor Lane Smith wrote:
> I think it's about time we started a minimalist, statically linked set
> of core utilities. The BSD family are bloated, and the GNU monstrous.
> Some of us seem to be resorting to using those from Plan 9, which were
> designed
25 matches
Mail list logo
