Re: snapshot in a few hours

[Jim Meyering]

Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> If anyone knows of bug-related fixes that aren't yet applied,
>> please speak up.  I'm thinking of making a snapshot today,
>> leading to a bug-fix release, coreutils-7.6, next week.
>
> It would be nice to get Ondřej's fix for copy xattrs from readonly files.
> I might be able to look at that in a couple of hours.

Thanks!

> There's also this one that popped up in our recent favorite: tail-2/wait

Right.  I suppose it'd be best to add some distcheck-time
code to prevent this sort of regression: configure as if
inotify were not available, and ensure the tail-related tests still pass.

Or maybe even add a hidden (three hyphen ---no-inotify, since we presume
it'll be used only for testing) option to expose that behavior without
the requirement to jump through build-time hoops.

What do you think?

>>From a23afe7b726cabd70f1afa7c4164fc8d36fe1c17 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Petr Salinger <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 17:58:34 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] tests: fix a tail-2/pid failure on GNU/kFreeBSD
>
> * tests/tail-2/wait: Increase the file name recheck frequency to
> fix a failure on systems without inotify and a file timestamp precision
> of 1 second (like GNU/kFreeBSD).
> ---
>  tests/tail-2/wait |    2 +-
>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tests/tail-2/wait b/tests/tail-2/wait
> index abe22d7..a5f189f 100755
> --- a/tests/tail-2/wait
> +++ b/tests/tail-2/wait
> @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ test $? = 124 || fail=1
>
>  test -s tail.err && fail=1
>
> -tail -s.1 -F k > tail.out &
> +tail -s.1 --max-unchanged-stats=2 -F k > tail.out &
>  pid=$!
>  sleep .5
>  mv k l