On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 02:14:48PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> > "Daniel P. Berrange" wrote:
> >> If you're taking feature requests, one thing I'd like for the syntax-check
> >
> > ;-) Always.
> >
> >> target is for it to print out the name of each check it is running.
Jim Meyering wrote:
> "Daniel P. Berrange" wrote:
>> If you're taking feature requests, one thing I'd like for the syntax-check
>
> ;-) Always.
>
>> target is for it to print out the name of each check it is running. We've
>> got quite alot of checks and so it just sits there for a long time us
"Daniel P. Berrange" wrote:
> If you're taking feature requests, one thing I'd like for the syntax-check
;-) Always.
> target is for it to print out the name of each check it is running. We've
> got quite alot of checks and so it just sits there for a long time using
> 100% cpu and with no feed
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 05:12:16PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> You can ignore the patch numbering.
> There was yet another one adjusting po/POTFILES.in
> that I'm not bothering to post.
>
> Probably not worth reviewing.
> Some of it is just factorization.
> Other bits reflect removal of coreutils
You can ignore the patch numbering.
There was yet another one adjusting po/POTFILES.in
that I'm not bothering to post.
Probably not worth reviewing.
Some of it is just factorization.
Other bits reflect removal of coreutils-specific things (they're
migrating into coreutils' cfg.mk (was called Makef
