On Jun 8 2007 01:06, Oleg Verych wrote:
>- empty lines in the end of file (patches can't be handled, or can? :).
Yes it can.
>Body -- is a commented sed script with shell variables for source/patch
>handling switch and compatibility with other versions of sed, not only GNU.
>If you like more
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:19:56PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Oleg Verych wrote:
> >
> > Because of that, i think, following is redundant:
> >
> > - to check for binary files
>
> find . -type f | xargs cleanfile
What about patches?
Anyway, by agreement (with myself), i've stopped on
Oleg Verych wrote:
>
> Because of that, i think, following is redundant:
>
> - to check for binary files
find . -type f | xargs cleanfile
I do this all the time.
> - scan whole file for long lines, with useless bunch of messages about
> ones. Useless, because script doesn't fix that, it
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:36:33PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>
> On Jun 6 2007 21:14, Oleg Verych wrote:
> >[]
> >> > Many things in XXI century still can be done by tools founded 20-30
> >> > years ago. Why not try to?
> >>
> >> Because your shell script is unreadable by normal human
On Jun 6 2007 21:14, Oleg Verych wrote:
>[]
>> > Many things in XXI century still can be done by tools founded 20-30
>> > years ago. Why not try to?
>>
>> Because your shell script is unreadable by normal human beings[*]
>> while the perl script for people with a bit of perl fu can read it
>>
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:19:56PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Oleg Verych wrote:
Because of that, i think, following is redundant:
- to check for binary files
find . -type f | xargs cleanfile
What about patches?
Anyway, by agreement (with myself), i've stopped on having
On Jun 8 2007 01:06, Oleg Verych wrote:
- empty lines in the end of file (patches can't be handled, or can? :).
Yes it can.
Body -- is a commented sed script with shell variables for source/patch
handling switch and compatibility with other versions of sed, not only GNU.
If you like more
On Jun 6 2007 21:14, Oleg Verych wrote:
[]
Many things in XXI century still can be done by tools founded 20-30
years ago. Why not try to?
Because your shell script is unreadable by normal human beings[*]
while the perl script for people with a bit of perl fu can read it
and fix/modify
On Thu, Jun 07, 2007 at 04:36:33PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Jun 6 2007 21:14, Oleg Verych wrote:
[]
Many things in XXI century still can be done by tools founded 20-30
years ago. Why not try to?
Because your shell script is unreadable by normal human beings[*]
while the
Oleg Verych wrote:
Because of that, i think, following is redundant:
- to check for binary files
find . -type f | xargs cleanfile
I do this all the time.
- scan whole file for long lines, with useless bunch of messages about
ones. Useless, because script doesn't fix that, it can't do
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 07:50:26PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
[]
> > Many things in XXI century still can be done by tools founded 20-30
> > years ago. Why not try to?
>
> Because your shell script is unreadable by normal human beings[*]
> while the perl script for people with a bit of perl fu
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 07:45:56PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
> While i'm against whitespace damaged files or patches since my very
> first patch, and don't like brain damaged programmer's tools called
> text editors, i also want to encourage UNIX-way of using userspace.
>
> Of course, i might be
While i'm against whitespace damaged files or patches since my very
first patch, and don't like brain damaged programmer's tools called
text editors, i also want to encourage UNIX-way of using userspace.
Of course, i might be wrong and foolish. Anyway, what i'm trying to do
is not to become new
While i'm against whitespace damaged files or patches since my very
first patch, and don't like brain damaged programmer's tools called
text editors, i also want to encourage UNIX-way of using userspace.
Of course, i might be wrong and foolish. Anyway, what i'm trying to do
is not to become new
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 07:45:56PM +0200, Oleg Verych wrote:
While i'm against whitespace damaged files or patches since my very
first patch, and don't like brain damaged programmer's tools called
text editors, i also want to encourage UNIX-way of using userspace.
Of course, i might be wrong
On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 07:50:26PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
[]
Many things in XXI century still can be done by tools founded 20-30
years ago. Why not try to?
Because your shell script is unreadable by normal human beings[*]
while the perl script for people with a bit of perl fu can read
16 matches
Mail list logo
