From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 03 13:45:56 2012 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Nov 2012 17:45:56 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47424 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TUhn9-0005iM-Ex for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 13:45:56 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:35163) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TUfhY-000109-9f for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 11:32:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TUfei-0004on-OI for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 11:29:05 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DEAR_SOMETHING, FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]:56475) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TUfei-0004oi-Kt for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 11:29:04 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55897) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TUfeh-0005lE-Eh for bug-coreutils@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 11:29:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TUfeg-0004o1-Kh for bug-coreutils@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 11:29:03 -0400 Received: from if00-mail-fb02-mia.mta.terra.com ([208.84.243.136]:40742) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TUfeg-0004no-H2 for bug-coreutils@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 11:29:02 -0400 Received: from 1bq.tpn.terra.com (unknown [10.235.200.59]) by mail-fb02-mia.tpn.terra.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B1141002828D for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 15:29:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Terra-Karma: -2% X-Terra-Hash: 39a6235f723f06695fb34d42b5cc5fe6 Received-SPF: pass (1bq.tpn.terra.com: domain of terra.com designates 208.84.242.62 as permitted sender) client-ip=208.84.242.62; envelope-from=kubry@terra.com; helo=tp.localnet; Received: from tp.localnet (unknown [95.169.242.195]) (authenticated user kubry@terra.com) by 1bq.tpn.terra.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 159BD80171379 for ; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 15:29:01 +0000 (UTC) From: Ganton To: bug-coreutils@gnu.org Subject: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 16:28:49 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-15-generic; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201211031628.49139.kubry@terra.com> X-Milter-Version: master.39-g1fd3ecd+ X-CLX-Rate-Response: fh=1bq; fi=10.235.200.248:2001; rg=B; GT=0; fs=1011; PS=bug-coreutils@gnu.org:0; ns=0; id=BFBuyWx2-A3152912; rv=6463/208.84.242.248:14051; ts=HytzY; fl=I; ip=95.169.242.195; he=9DAxxkzphw; ho=Fo4NT9pY+Bt; hd=MiyMN+lL6Vc; hf=J/+sOk8X+c3; hF=MxcI2dHdPui; hj=E+Ljir1g25k; hr=HlDBiIc2F54; ZB=IuE+zf5TGHH; ZB=FfW+AvFxzmB; ZB=MsqocaiDC5+; ZB=NmydLKqvkqf; ZB=O8JHGAtlE4v; ZF=GPULrfDgMs3; X-CLX-ID: a133GLF8x5q20VH-A3152911 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 208.118.235.17 X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 13:45:53 -0400 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) Dear sirs: I send you a bug report. # DESCRIPTION Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr. For example, when I do backups, I see "errors" from dd... that really aren't. # WAY TO REPRODUCE THE BUG A user can execute: partition=$(mount | awk '$2=="on" && $3=="/" {print $1}') sudo dd if="$partition" of=/tmp/copseg.dd count=1 bs=512 >/dev/null and then he sees something like this in his screen: 1+0 records in 1+0 records out 512 bytes (512 B) copied, 0,000129625 s, 3,9 MB/s # EXPECTED RESULTS: The user should see nothing, as there was no error and stdout was redirected to /dev/null. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 03 15:11:43 2012 Received: (at 12794-done) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Nov 2012 19:11:43 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47523 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TUj8A-000100-Tb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 15:11:43 -0400 Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.62]:37515) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TUj88-0000zt-OH for 12794-done@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 15:11:41 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB8FFA60004; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 12:08:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smtp.cs.ucla.edu Received: from smtp.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LSUiqwatTtwS; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 12:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-108-23-119-2.lsanca.fios.verizon.net [108.23.119.2]) by smtp.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 94527A60002; Sat, 3 Nov 2012 12:08:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <50956BBD.5080802@cs.ucla.edu> Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:08:45 -0700 From: Paul Eggert Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121028 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ganton Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr References: <201211031628.49139.kubry@terra.com> In-Reply-To: <201211031628.49139.kubry@terra.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12794-done Cc: 12794-done@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -2.1 (--) On 11/03/2012 08:28 AM, Ganton wrote: > when I do backups, I see "errors" from dd... that really aren't. You have a point, but I'm afraid that dd is documented to behave that way, and it's part of the POSIX standard, and lots of people depend on it. To turn off the chatter, use "dd status=noxfer". From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sat Nov 03 19:50:10 2012 Received: (at 12794) by debbugs.gnu.org; 3 Nov 2012 23:50:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47748 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TUnTd-0008Au-Q4 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:50:09 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:25249) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TUnTb-0008Aj-ML; Sat, 03 Nov 2012 19:50:08 -0400 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA3NkxTI010662 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 3 Nov 2012 19:47:01 -0400 Received: from [10.36.116.18] (ovpn-116-18.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.18]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA3Nkuw4019432 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 3 Nov 2012 19:46:58 -0400 Message-ID: <5095ACF0.9000405@draigBrady.com> Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 23:46:56 +0000 From: =?UTF-8?B?UMOhZHJhaWcgQnJhZHk=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 12794@debbugs.gnu.org, eggert@cs.ucla.edu Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr References: <201211031628.49139.kubry@terra.com> <50956BBD.5080802@cs.ucla.edu> In-Reply-To: <50956BBD.5080802@cs.ucla.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.23 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx1.redhat.com id qA3NkxTI010662 X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12794 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) package coreutils tags 12794 notabug stop On 11/03/2012 07:08 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 11/03/2012 08:28 AM, Ganton wrote: > >> when I do backups, I see "errors" from dd... that really aren't. > > You have a point, but I'm afraid that dd is documented to behave > that way, and it's part of the POSIX standard, and lots of people > depend on it. To turn off the chatter, use "dd status=3Dnoxfer". Or the newer more encompassing "status=3Dnone" thanks, P=C3=A1draig. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Nov 05 16:46:25 2012 Received: (at 12794) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Nov 2012 21:46:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51143 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVUUy-0005mb-Tp for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:46:25 -0500 Received: from if00-mail-fb01-mia.mta.terra.com ([208.84.243.135]:46001) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVUUv-0005mT-Ls for 12794@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:46:22 -0500 Received: from 1w8.tpn.terra.com (unknown [10.235.200.60]) by mail-fb01-mia.tpn.terra.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2581002B1D7; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 21:43:13 +0000 (UTC) X-Terra-Karma: -2% X-Terra-Hash: 47050a391e7b7cc6822e3de93c1df580 Received-SPF: pass (1w8.tpn.terra.com: domain of terra.com designates 208.84.242.62 as permitted sender) client-ip=208.84.242.62; envelope-from=kubry@terra.com; helo=tp.localnet; Received: from tp.localnet (unknown [95.169.242.180]) (authenticated user kubry@terra.com) by 1w8.tpn.terra.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id F3EEAC00000BC; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 21:43:12 +0000 (UTC) From: Ganton To: Paul Eggert , 12794@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:43:09 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-15-generic; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201211031628.49139.kubry@terra.com> <50956BBD.5080802@cs.ucla.edu> In-Reply-To: <50956BBD.5080802@cs.ucla.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201211052243.09280.kubry@terra.com> X-Milter-Version: master.39-g1fd3ecd+ X-CLX-Rate-Response: fh=1w8; fi=10.235.200.247:2001; rg=B; GT=0; fs=1011; PS=12794@debbugs.gnu.org:0,eggert@cs.ucla.edu:0; ns=0; id=BFBtyWy6-A52143Dc; rv=6463/208.84.242.247:14051; ts=HzdeM; fl=HAI; ip=95.169.242.180; he=9DAxxkzphw; nr=2; nt=2; ho=Fo4NT9pY+Bt; hd=MiyMN+lL6Vc; hf=J/+sOk8X+c3; hF=MxcI2dHdPui; hj=KBAiM6tkW4J; ZB=JkNgjAmDeHg; ZB=PzFZ3D0R3dG; ZB=EKtf+u9mmcQ; ZB=HfDVSadosw6; ZB=Os3ud0RpGBt; ZU=MeX+26AsFiF; Zu=E4yjvLcFGOG; ZF=GPULrfDgMs3; Zf=Jtzb4rX1d3r; X-CLX-ID: a123GLF8y3K80VH-A52143D2 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12794 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) Hello: > > when I do backups, I see "errors" from dd... that really aren't. > > [...] > > 1+0 records in > > 1+0 records out > > 512 bytes (512 B) copied, 0,000129625 s, 3,9 MB/s > > [...] > > > You have a point, but I'm afraid that dd is documented to behave > that way, and it's part of the POSIX standard, and lots of people > depend on it. [...] Many ones will doubt that the POSIX standard is so broken that forces people to see messages in stderr that are not errors and not wanted. That even goes against the Unix philosophy, for example, against the "Rule of Silence: When a program has nothing surprising to say, it should say nothing" (http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html) and, even less, say it in stderr. > [...] To turn off the chatter, use "dd status=noxfer". Thanks for the information. If the user utilizes "dd status=noxfer", he gets rid of lines like 512 bytes (512 B) copied, 0,000129625 s, 3,9 MB/s in stderr, although he keeps seeing lines like 1+0 records in 1+0 records out in stderr. Does anyone think a new report bug should be filled so that an optional dd parameter could eliminate that last kind of messages from stderr? Greetings! From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Nov 05 16:52:03 2012 Received: (at 12794) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Nov 2012 21:52:03 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51152 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVUaR-0005uf-7w for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:52:03 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53655) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVUaO-0005uA-9t for 12794@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:52:02 -0500 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA5LmjXf013020 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:48:45 -0500 Received: from [10.3.113.113] (ovpn-113-113.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.113]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA5Lmj2m003485; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:48:45 -0500 Message-ID: <5098343C.6030400@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:48:44 -0700 From: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121016 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ganton Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr References: <201211031628.49139.kubry@terra.com> <50956BBD.5080802@cs.ucla.edu> <201211052243.09280.kubry@terra.com> In-Reply-To: <201211052243.09280.kubry@terra.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 OpenPGP: url=http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigE09F23D101B09A77F5BCB67D" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.24 X-Spam-Score: -4.6 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12794 Cc: Paul Eggert , 12794@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -5.4 (-----) This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigE09F23D101B09A77F5BCB67D Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/05/2012 02:43 PM, Ganton wrote: > Many ones will doubt that the POSIX standard is so broken that forces p= eople=20 > to see messages in stderr that are not errors and not wanted. That even= goes=20 > against the Unix philosophy, for example, against the "Rule of Silence:= When a=20 > program has nothing surprising to say, it should say nothing"=20 Sorry, but dd is older than POSIX, and POSIX standardized existing practice rather than forcing dd to change. You're 40 years too late on this one. > Thanks for the information. If the user utilizes "dd status=3Dnoxfer", = he gets=20 > rid of lines like > 512 bytes (512 B) copied, 0,000129625 s, 3,9 MB/s > in stderr, although he keeps seeing lines like > 1+0 records in > 1+0 records out > in stderr. Does anyone think a new report bug should be filled so that = an=20 > optional dd parameter could eliminate that last kind of messages from s= tderr? No need to report a new bug - we already told you that coreutils 8.20 added 'dd status=3Dnone' to silence even that information. --=20 Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org --------------enigE09F23D101B09A77F5BCB67D Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Public key at http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJQmDQ8AAoJEKeha0olJ0NqxRAH/1Rvy41ZQt9uA3L6BlQxfTQ3 TsLioKRQps/5FTye7GU5KD8El02rFRlfVbl2SEj+QjdAkfXrjZc76gc/++Mxp/1M wo+HTEtJYLxJUSOnrTDBZqF5geg3nlw7oPT/P5UIN9BvV4+VS9PMd8bUAj+hpHYt tkoR5WPLypqqbu87OJI1vobS6FfA6WDB0lHMYzIzkGg3FNrCa63eTWkP+0h5tGti ANxWhZqvUF3W2DUpuUM8kmk2H3lAjhsUyfAMQ7ECLVdfS3daHI63qLcRPfzUUEX+ ZEz3QqOFt9mvQ3ahlr4BqkkM1p6ouOtILrLD0UCon2Oy2c+Awdyo4eyzzkaSC9M= =3Ykt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigE09F23D101B09A77F5BCB67D-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Nov 05 18:00:09 2012 Received: (at 12794) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Nov 2012 23:00:09 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51195 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVVeK-0008IK-5k for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:00:08 -0500 Received: from if00-mail-fb01-mia.mta.terra.com ([208.84.243.135]:39406) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVVeI-0008ID-6L for 12794@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:00:07 -0500 Received: from 1gr.tpn.terra.com (unknown [10.235.200.44]) by mail-fb01-mia.tpn.terra.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 470331002B723; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:56:58 +0000 (UTC) X-Terra-Karma: -2% X-Terra-Hash: 4cf6f296a6201e108da9cf38fdf8e6be Received-SPF: pass (1gr.tpn.terra.com: domain of terra.com designates 208.84.242.62 as permitted sender) client-ip=208.84.242.62; envelope-from=kubry@terra.com; helo=tp.localnet; Received: from tp.localnet (unknown [95.169.243.237]) (authenticated user kubry@terra.com) by 1gr.tpn.terra.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id D99B340000379; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:56:57 +0000 (UTC) From: Ganton To: 12794@debbugs.gnu.org, Eric Blake Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 23:56:47 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-15-generic; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201211031628.49139.kubry@terra.com> <201211052243.09280.kubry@terra.com> <5098343C.6030400@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5098343C.6030400@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201211052356.47671.kubry@terra.com> X-Milter-Version: master.39-g1fd3ecd+ X-CLX-Rate-Response: fh=1gr; fi=10.235.200.248:2001; rg=B; GT=0; fs=1011; PS=12794@debbugs.gnu.org:0,eblake@redhat.com:0,eggert@cs.ucla.edu:0; ns=0; id=BFBuyWi1-A52256wD; rv=6463/208.84.242.248:14051; ts=HzejV; fl=FAI; ip=95.169.243.237; he=9DAxxkzphw; nr=3; nt=2; nc=1; ho=Fo4NT9pY+Bt; hd=MiyMN+lL6Vc; hf=J/+sOk8X+c3; hF=MxcI2dHdPui; hj=OtxNIRjBdOf; ZB=DCRNQB/B+fL; ZB=FNuxdkzK/Zt; ZB=NCgVmGljT0i; ZB=PteIiW/sGWP; ZB=D5ag8aGYR3v; ZF=GPULrfDgMs3; X-CLX-ID: a133GLF8i43m0VH-A52256w1 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12794 Cc: Paul Eggert X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) > Sorry, but dd is older than POSIX Paul Eggert wrote "dd is [...] part of the POSIX standard" and I wrote consequently, if the dd specification is broken, then the POSIX standard is broken, too. > You're 40 years too late on this one. This kind of condescending attitudes do not improve matters. > No need to report a new bug - we already told you that coreutils 8.20 > added 'dd status=none' to silence even that information. "We already told you"? Who is Eric Blake talking to? Nobody talked there about coreutils 8.20 or 'dd status=none'. Paul Eggert kindly wrote about 'dd status=noxfer'. Eric Blake can re-read the thread if he wants to, and if he doesn't want to, at least he can stop talking people condescendingly after not really reading the conversations. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Nov 05 18:14:48 2012 Received: (at 12794) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Nov 2012 23:14:48 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51206 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVVsV-0000AN-Pb for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:14:48 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:49424) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVVsS-0000AE-FH for 12794@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:14:46 -0500 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA5NBYRZ016499 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 5 Nov 2012 18:11:34 -0500 Received: from [10.3.113.113] (ovpn-113-113.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.113]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA5NBWHQ021134; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 18:11:33 -0500 Message-ID: <509847A3.9000304@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:11:31 -0700 From: Eric Blake Organization: Red Hat User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121016 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ganton Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr References: <201211031628.49139.kubry@terra.com> <201211052243.09280.kubry@terra.com> <5098343C.6030400@redhat.com> <201211052356.47671.kubry@terra.com> In-Reply-To: <201211052356.47671.kubry@terra.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.5 OpenPGP: url=http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig4CC2D893106D68F1D3949EB7" X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.25 X-Spam-Score: -4.6 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12794 Cc: Paul Eggert , 12794@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -7.3 (-------) This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig4CC2D893106D68F1D3949EB7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11/05/2012 03:56 PM, Ganton wrote: >> Sorry, but dd is older than POSIX > Paul Eggert wrote "dd is [...] part of the POSIX standard" and I wrote = > consequently, if the dd specification is broken, then the POSIX standar= d is=20 > broken, too. >=20 >> You're 40 years too late on this one. > This kind of condescending attitudes do not improve matters. I'm sorry if I came across as condescending - that was not my intent. Email is a poor forum for hearing the emotions intended. But the point remains - if you think POSIX is broken for having standardized dd behavior (40 years old) that existed at the time POSIX was first written (20 years old), then please take up your complaint with POSIX. Membership in the Austin Group is free of charge: http://www.opengroup.org/austin/. I will give you fair warning in advance that you are unlikely to convince the Austin Group to make any changes, because they are reluctant to change historical behavior that has been so firmly entrenched for so many years, but more power to you if you succeed. Remember, dd is already an oddball for taking arguments in the form of 'param=3Dval' instead of the more traditional '- val', precisely because dd is so much older than the bulk of the other utilities that were standardized by POSIX; that is, dd existed prior to the common practice of being silent on success that exists in many of the other utilities also standardized by POSIX. Meanwhile, Coreutils can't do anything about the default situation unless you can convince the POSIX people to change the standard; and likewise, we can, and have, done something about it if you are willing to use extensions beyond POSIX, in the form of status=3Dnone. >=20 >> No need to report a new bug - we already told you that coreutils 8.20 >> added 'dd status=3Dnone' to silence even that information. > "We already told you"? Who is Eric Blake talking to? Nobody talked ther= e about=20 > coreutils 8.20 or 'dd status=3Dnone'. P=E1draig mentioned 'dd status=3Dnone' in the message before your reply addressed to Paul, when looking at the thread: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2012-11/msg00012.html or at the bug report: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D12794#13 > Paul Eggert kindly wrote about 'dd=20 > status=3Dnoxfer'. Eric Blake can re-read the thread if he wants to, and= if he=20 > doesn't want to, at least he can stop talking people condescendingly af= ter not=20 > really reading the conversations. Again, I apologize if you are mis-reading my intent. And yes, I did re-read the thread, both before my first thread mentioning why POSIX standardized things the way they did (and therefore why coreutils can only add extensions, such as status=3Dnone, rather than changing the behavior by default), and again before writing this reply; my assumption (perhaps mistaken) was that you had read P=E1draig's reply. --=20 Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org --------------enig4CC2D893106D68F1D3949EB7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Public key at http://people.redhat.com/eblake/eblake.gpg Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJQmEekAAoJEKeha0olJ0NqtrIIAJ5ro/3ZtmT9ezEH5kaxWkkx CHJnXOO9PWACuFCQ1FuiIICyCXrDMo/+MRBuva1wGpqHIqk0fCIgX0pIwGIKHwjR Oz7KppGH5sqkXx/ECAoyLHohOD6EWAc4Ajv5DAxTzdlBB1ffzp3xQmXg6iA3OFN/ YKmCB+D28TZ+cRkZAaaZE+zCGbvkCQFHENjWKbkRwgU+fCvG+RZlH1+qTQPcgJir z1l2/CRfvnFLn5pVRrXpjCk9PqBjXvdV+S4M2x5CpqapmaHr9EZfpmVdlEz6q8kM 1H00E225WNlX1euWWjnBHAie7zCVG+bhNRl0zJaNdtFiHRndbqWmmKjFYZ8IUtQ= =vWpD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig4CC2D893106D68F1D3949EB7-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Nov 05 18:53:47 2012 Received: (at 12794) by debbugs.gnu.org; 5 Nov 2012 23:53:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51252 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVWUE-00015a-NS for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:53:46 -0500 Received: from if00-mail-fb02-mia.mta.terra.com ([208.84.243.136]:58759) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVWUD-00015S-3j for 12794@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 18:53:45 -0500 Received: from 1xj.tpn.terra.com (unknown [10.235.200.48]) by mail-fb02-mia.tpn.terra.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DED5310078E2D; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 23:50:36 +0000 (UTC) X-Terra-Karma: -2% X-Terra-Hash: 390ffb87febf3e11f5f010c28c097d2c Received-SPF: pass (1xj.tpn.terra.com: domain of terra.com designates 208.84.242.62 as permitted sender) client-ip=208.84.242.62; envelope-from=kubry@terra.com; helo=tp.localnet; Received: from tp.localnet (unknown [95.169.243.122]) (authenticated user kubry@terra.com) by 1xj.tpn.terra.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 7914040000D25; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 23:50:36 +0000 (UTC) From: Ganton To: Eric Blake Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 00:50:32 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-15-generic; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201211031628.49139.kubry@terra.com> <201211052356.47671.kubry@terra.com> <509847A3.9000304@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <509847A3.9000304@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201211060050.32934.kubry@terra.com> X-Milter-Version: master.39-g1fd3ecd+ X-CLX-Rate-Response: fh=1xj; fi=10.235.200.250:2001; rg=B; GT=0; fs=1011; PS=12794@debbugs.gnu.org:0,eblake@redhat.com:0,eggert@cs.ucla.edu:0; ns=0; id=BFBwyWm1-A52350ac; rv=7182/208.84.242.250:14051; ts=HzfVn; fl=HAI; ip=95.169.243.122; he=9DAxxkzphw; nr=3; nc=2; ho=Fo4NT9pY+Bt; hd=MiyMN+lL6Vc; hf=J/+sOk8X+c3; hF=MxcI2dHdPui; hj=KBAiM6tkW4J; ZB=MoJLa1zRCD6; ZB=BqbtAwO1Lt1; ZB=GBslo0I/w+e; ZB=BrgKqSNt2h2; ZB=M58orHZi4l+; ZF=GPULrfDgMs3; Zf=OX/R4jSUfzw; X-CLX-ID: a111_00010Mv0VH-A52350a5 X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12794 Cc: Paul Eggert , 12794@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) Thanks, Eric Blake, for your explanations. About what the "conversation" really was, you made clear that there was=20 another person, "P=E1draig", that sent a text that arrived to some people b= ut=20 not to other ones (at least me, maybe because he sent an e-mail and I wasn'= t=20 in the "recipient list"), so I wasn't told what someone thought I was. About the "unlikely to convince the Austin Group", I think you are right.=20 Anyway, I hope that some day people will be better without some "unique",=20 anti-standard behaviors that can be corrected :-), specially those that=20 require few changes to the existing codebase. Meanwhile, I applaud the latest addition of parameters like "status=3Dnone"= that=20 you have made, to try to correct what is possible nowadays. Greetings! From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Nov 05 19:00:27 2012 Received: (at 12794) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Nov 2012 00:00:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51268 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVWag-0001Fs-UW for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 19:00:27 -0500 Received: from joseki.proulx.com ([216.17.153.58]:43577) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVWad-0001Fk-I2 for 12794@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 19:00:25 -0500 Received: from hysteria.proulx.com (hysteria.proulx.com [192.168.230.119]) by joseki.proulx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC9AA211D5; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:57:14 -0700 (MST) Received: by hysteria.proulx.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D59F32DCD1; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:57:14 -0700 (MST) Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:57:14 -0700 From: Bob Proulx To: Ganton Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr Message-ID: <20121105235714.GA20906@hysteria.proulx.com> References: <201211031628.49139.kubry@terra.com> <201211052243.09280.kubry@terra.com> <5098343C.6030400@redhat.com> <201211052356.47671.kubry@terra.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201211052356.47671.kubry@terra.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12794 Cc: 12794@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) Ganton wrote: > > Sorry, but dd is older than POSIX > Paul Eggert wrote "dd is [...] part of the POSIX standard" and I wrote=20 > consequently, if the dd specification is broken, then the POSIX standar= d is=20 > broken, too. The task of the POSIX standard was to document existing behavior and standardize it so that there wouldn't be even more differences between systems. Of course lately it has become a design-by-committee. It is hard for people to resist these temptations. But standardizing on the behavior that is already in existence is a good thing because it allows people to write programs that not only run on their own system but ones that stand a chance of running on another person's system too. > > You're 40 years too late on this one. > This kind of condescending attitudes do not improve matters. Please no ad-hominem attacks. Thanks. I didn't read that as any condescending attitude. I read it plainly that the dd command has been around for a long, long time. It's option syntax and behavior isn't common with other programs. It is unique. Many commands were we written uniquely back then. There wasn't any best-practice to follow. Now here it is forty years later and the dd command and others have been doing their job all of this time. Changing core behaviors such as this always have consequences. That is why it is set up as an option. If it is desired to be different from the standard then add the status=3Dnone option. > > No need to report a new bug - we already told you that coreutils 8.20 > > added 'dd status=3Dnone' to silence even that information. > > "We already told you"? Who is Eric Blake talking to? Nobody talked > there about coreutils 8.20 or 'dd status=3Dnone'. Paul Eggert kindly > wrote about 'dd status=3Dnoxfer'. Eric Blake can re-read the thread if > he wants to, and if he doesn't want to, at least he can stop talking > people condescendingly after not really reading the conversations. Unfortunately P=E1draig missed you in the recipient list when replying to Paul. See P=E1draig response with that item in this message logged here: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D12794#13 Generally we CC the original poster but for the rest of us we are all already subscribed and so we chop off the extra CCs so that we don't get too many copies. But unfortunately a (mis)feature of the debbugs bug tracking software is that it doesn't automatically CC the bug submitter. (I don't know if that is set up with debbugs.gnu.org but generally with the BTS the 12794-submitter@debbugs.gnu.org address would go to the bug submitter. So it would be both 12794@ and 12794-submitter@ to get both.) Bob From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Nov 05 20:25:15 2012 Received: (at 12794) by debbugs.gnu.org; 6 Nov 2012 01:25:15 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51332 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVXul-00036B-6d for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 20:25:15 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:30141) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVXui-000363-UG for 12794@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 20:25:14 -0500 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA61M3ed032483 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 5 Nov 2012 20:22:03 -0500 Received: from [10.36.116.28] (ovpn-116-28.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.28]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qA61M0Kn005377 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 5 Nov 2012 20:22:02 -0500 Message-ID: <50986638.9080100@draigBrady.com> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:22:00 +0000 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?P=E1draig_Brady?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Proulx Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr References: <201211031628.49139.kubry@terra.com> <201211052243.09280.kubry@terra.com> <5098343C.6030400@redhat.com> <201211052356.47671.kubry@terra.com> <20121105235714.GA20906@hysteria.proulx.com> In-Reply-To: <20121105235714.GA20906@hysteria.proulx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.24 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx1.redhat.com id qA61M3ed032483 X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12794 Cc: 12794@debbugs.gnu.org, Ganton X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -4.2 (----) On 11/05/2012 11:57 PM, Bob Proulx wrote: > Unfortunately P=E1draig missed you in the recipient list when replying > to Paul. See P=E1draig response with that item in this message logged > here: > > http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=3D12794#13 > > Generally we CC the original poster but for the rest of us we are all > already subscribed and so we chop off the extra CCs so that we don't > get too many copies. But unfortunately a (mis)feature of the debbugs > bug tracking software is that it doesn't automatically CC the bug > submitter. (I don't know if that is set up with debbugs.gnu.org but > generally with the BTS the 12794-submitter@debbugs.gnu.org address > would go to the bug submitter. So it would be both 12794@ and > 12794-submitter@ to get both.) That is a misfeature. Another that compounds it is when you send email from $from to $bugnum-done@debbugs.gnu.org, the corresponding email has this header: Mail-Followup-To: $bugnum@debbugs.gnu.org, $from I guess that's so $bugnum is used in future rather than $bugnum-done, but note how none of the original To: or Cc: are included. So that would be another bug IMHO. Thus when I "reply all" in thunderbird at least, the response misses anyone on the To: or Cc: The resoning behind the mail client behavior is: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird:Help_Documentation:Mail-Followup-To_= and_Mail-Reply-To cheers, P=E1draig. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Wed Nov 07 04:06:19 2012 Received: (at 12794) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Nov 2012 09:06:19 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53378 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TW1aU-0001kI-8I for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 04:06:19 -0500 Received: from ishtar.tlinx.org ([173.164.175.65]:35034) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TW1aR-0001kA-RI for 12794@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 07 Nov 2012 04:06:17 -0500 Received: from [192.168.3.12] (Athenae [192.168.3.12]) by Ishtar.tlinx.org (8.14.5/8.14.4/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id qA796GCT024197; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 01:06:18 -0800 Message-ID: <509A248A.90508@tlinx.org> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 01:06:18 -0800 From: Linda Walsh User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bob Proulx Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr References: <201211031628.49139.kubry@terra.com> <201211052243.09280.kubry@terra.com> <5098343C.6030400@redhat.com> <201211052356.47671.kubry@terra.com> <20121105235714.GA20906@hysteria.proulx.com> In-Reply-To: <20121105235714.GA20906@hysteria.proulx.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040807020701060608040503" X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12794 Cc: 12794@debbugs.gnu.org, Ganton X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.4 (/) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040807020701060608040503 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm wanting to clarify two issues about this exchange. One issue is regarding personal interactions, and the other issues is about the nature of the POSIX standard. These are observations -- not a call to action. Bob Proulx wrote: > Ganton wrote: > >>> Sorry, but dd is older than POSIX >>> >> Paul Eggert wrote "dd is [...] part of the POSIX standard" and I wrote >> consequently, if the dd specification is broken, then the POSIX standard is >> broken, too. >> > > The task of the POSIX standard was to document existing behavior and > standardize it so that there wouldn't be even more differences between > systems. Of course lately it has become a design-by-committee. It is > hard for people to resist these temptations. But standardizing on the > behavior that is already in existence is a good thing because it > allows people to write programs that not only run on their own system > but ones that stand a chance of running on another person's system too. > > >>> You're 40 years too late on this one. >>> >> This kind of condescending attitudes do not improve matters. >> > > Please no ad-hominem attacks. Thanks. > ---- What is an ad-hominem attack? Isn't that an attack against the person? Clearly, the poster was talking about an attitude that came across as condescending. I've been told on this list, that using "you" was considered attacking, even though in my writing I'd specifically stayed away from any name-calling or ad-hominem attacks, the simple use of "you" was considered enough to make my message "attacking". Clearly, one can see certain messages colored in different ways, regardless of intent. However, there are two issues I would like to point out here. First, the original statement talked about an attitude that appeared indicated in a specific statement and didn't talk about a person, it doesn't seem possible that "ad hominem" would apply. Second, during a conversation that became heated, when I asked if I had called the other person any names, or engaged, in any personal attacks, I was told 'not', but that I had used the word "you" -- thus making it "attacking". If "you" is sufficient to judge writing as being "attacking" (on some or any level), then calling the recipient of such language "out of line" for describing such language as "attacking, (specifically, condescending), seems as though a double standard is being used. This isn't NOT meant to be a judgment, as 'you', is a standard part of speech, mean to direct one's speaking to another. Calling it an attack is certainly a subjective call. I'm not wanting a argument or discussion about this -- I'm only wanting to point out the inconsistencies in how judgments are being applied and a trend to seeing them applied is specific directions. I presume this is unconscious, but in both cases it did involve POSIX, which is being used on a subtle level to control the Open source community -- even though the standard was purchased by Corporate wealth. That something appears "open" to contributing, means nothing by itself. I've seen more than one open source projects that claimed to be "open", only to see patches to correct design problems, persistently ignored for personal or political reasons -- even when such flaws clearly couldn't be justified on objective, sound, engineering principles. --===-- Also some have said POSIX was "descriptive" and such is stated in their initial mission statement. ... To use MS-lingo, this was the "Embrace" phase. POSIX has moved beyond that phase and now is in the "Extend" phase, where it has become prescriptive -- not describing existing practice, but dictating new and incompatible behaviors. Besides the shift from descriptive to prescriptive, POSIX has also shifted from being a program-portability standard -- a description of features programs could rely on being there in order to aid portability, it has also expanded into prescribing User Interface behaviors that NOT ONLY, exceed it's purpose in providing a base for program portability, but actually harm program portability. Prioritizing user-interface design on the command line over program portability goes against the core-purpose of the standard, yet this is what has happened, approximately after the 2001 POSIX updates. The POSIX standard, 'now', no longer follows it's initial mission statement, and is is now a corporate tool for controlling the open source community. Whether or not POSIX is being moved into the extinguish phase is arguable while it is in process, but it must be noted, that Microsoft, which supported POSIX in its earliest forms in the late 90's with it's POSIX subsystem, now feels they have no more need to support or provide POSIX compatibility, since starting with Windows 8, their POSIX subsystem is dead. Buying into POSIX changes that reduce functionality and break previous program compatibility would seem to be a good way to accelerate the last phase, but ironically, reverting incompatible behaviors is now seen as creating new incompatibilities -- even when it would be impossible for new programs to have been written to rely on those incompatibilities as they are features that have been removed -- i.e. it would be impossible for a useful program to rely on something that is guaranteed not to work. So -- I'm just clarifying: POSIX isn't want it used to be. --------------040807020701060608040503 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by Ishtar.tlinx.org id qA796GCT024197 I'm wanting to clarify two issues about this exchange.

One issue is regarding personal interactions, and the other issues is about the nature of the POSIX standard.=C2=A0 These are observations -- n= ot a call to action.


Bob Proulx wrote: 
Ganton wrote:
  
Sorry, but dd is older than POSIX
      
Paul Eggert wrote "dd is [...] part of the POSIX stand=
ard" and I wrote=20
consequently, if the dd specification is broken, then the POSIX standard =
is=20
broken, too.
    

The task of the POSIX standard was to document existing behavior and
standardize it so that there wouldn't be even more differences between
systems.  Of course lately it has become a design-by-committee.  It is
hard for people to resist these temptations.  But standardizing on the
behavior that is already in existence is a good thing because it
allows people to write programs that not only run on their own system
but ones that stand a chance of running on another person's system too.

  
You're 40 years too late on this one.
      
This kind of condescending attitudes do not improve ma=
tters.
    

Please no ad-hominem attacks.  Thanks.
----

What is an ad-hominem attack?=C2=A0 Isn't that an attack against the person?

Clearly, the poster was talking about an attitude that came across as condescending.=C2=A0=C2=A0 I've been told on this list, that using "yo= u" was considered attacking, even though in my writing I'd specifically stayed away from any name-calling or ad-hominem attacks, the simple use of "you" was considered enough to make my message "attacking".=C2=A0

=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Clearly, one can see certain messages colored in diffe= rent ways, regardless of intent.=C2=A0

However, there are two issues I would like to point out here. First,=C2=A0 the original statement talked about an attitude that appeare= d indicated in a specific statement and didn't talk about a person, it doesn't seem possible that "ad hominem" would apply.=C2=A0 Second, during= a conversation that became heated, when I asked if I had called the other person any names, or engaged, in any personal attacks, I was told 'not', but that I had used the word "you" -- thus making it "attacking".=C2=A0=C2=A0

If "you" is sufficient to judge writing as being "attacking" (on some or any level), then calling the recipient of such language "out of line"=C2=A0 for describing such language as "attacking, (specifically, condescending),=C2=A0 seems as though a double standard is being used.

This isn't NOT meant to be a judgment, as 'you', is a standard part of speech, mean to direct one's speaking to another.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Calling = it an attack is certainly a subjective call.=C2=A0=C2=A0 I'm not wanting a argu= ment or discussion about this -- I'm only wanting to point out the inconsistencies in how judgments are being applied and a trend to seeing them applied is specific directions.=C2=A0=C2=A0 I presume this is unconscious, but in both cases it did involve POSIX, which is being used on a subtle level to control the Open source community -- even though the standard was purchased by Corporate wealth.=C2=A0 That somethi= ng appears "open" to contributing, means nothing by itself.=C2=A0 I've seen more than one open source projects that claimed to be "open", only to see patches to correct design problems, persistently ignored for personal or political reasons -- even when such flaws clearly couldn't be justified on objective, sound, engineering principles.


--=3D=3D=3D--

Also some have said POSIX was "descriptive" and such is stated in their initial mission statement.=C2=A0 ... To use MS-lingo, this was the "Embrace" phase.=C2=A0=C2=A0 POSIX has moved beyond that phase and now is= in the "Extend" phase, where it has become prescriptive -- not describing existing practice, but dictating new and incompatible behaviors.

Besides the shift from descriptive to prescriptive, POSIX has also shifted from being a program-portability standard -- a description of features programs could rely on being there in order to aid portability, it has also expanded into prescribing User Interface behaviors that NOT ONLY, exceed it's purpose in providing a base for program portability, but actually harm program portability.=C2=A0=C2=A0 Prioritizing user-interface design on the command line over program portability goes against the core-purpose of the standard, yet this is what has happened, approximately after the 2001 POSIX updates.

The POSIX standard, 'now', no longer follows it's initial mission statement, and is is now a corporate tool for controlling the open source community.=C2=A0

Whether or not POSIX is being moved into the extinguish phase is arguable while it is in process, but it must be noted, that Microsoft, which supported POSIX in its earliest forms in the late 90's with it's POSIX subsystem, now feels they have no more need to support or provide POSIX compatibility, since starting with Windows 8, their POSIX subsystem is dead.

Buying into POSIX changes that reduce functionality and break previous program compatibility would seem to be a good way to accelerate the last phase, but ironically, reverting incompatible behaviors is now seen as creating new incompatibilities -- even when it would be impossible for new programs to have been written to rely on those incompatibilities as they are features that have been removed -- i.e. it would be impossible for a useful program to rely on something that is guaranteed not to work.

So -- I'm just clarifying: POSIX isn't want it used to be.



--------------040807020701060608040503-- From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Thu Nov 08 13:14:32 2012 Received: (at 12794) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Nov 2012 18:14:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:56387 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TWWcZ-0002FR-O0 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:14:32 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:60650) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TWWcX-0002FI-0o for 12794@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 13:14:30 -0500 Received: from [192.168.2.106] (p4FF75E22.dip.t-dialin.net [79.247.94.34]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mrbap4) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MAulY-1TgNyN09Ke-00AZgL; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:14:24 +0100 Message-ID: <509BF67E.6020409@bernhard-voelker.de> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:14:22 +0100 From: Bernhard Voelker User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121025 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linda Walsh Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr References: <201211031628.49139.kubry@terra.com> <201211052243.09280.kubry@terra.com> <5098343C.6030400@redhat.com> <201211052356.47671.kubry@terra.com> <20121105235714.GA20906@hysteria.proulx.com> <509A248A.90508@tlinx.org> In-Reply-To: <509A248A.90508@tlinx.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:oykz9uqZgES3rRfE2IrNBr7sSEgbRrjiMncyByU9MZM tnm0UqCE0dtyZUd0AgXyfRNfDH9v8VrwqX5LVMeOJ1sQsx5LBM tiUMO32Mp9a/QxozMURiVsdxwS/e8RV+h0JuOxE5UbkPQ+prxw +vNSv9+6QJ139tXsiyuj0mBSUElXm1VVsD8bdem2BffUNqzwqD vJGRsEd7qc2sl2KrsZQ/m/ts1XFmeBFHgqZZzz8G/jCrQnjHCB hmB+DhpulknHefOj+nK9wHZfABCBOx6j8uDT15atc/J3+dCSyH xqtzVFnnC+09YGHR6Onlex4P4qS3Svmth3DCkbtQR0P2HkzMH1 /RTxjfS9X9E7ulTXOTmJvzXDbbzbT4yLEZ94tJYcs X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12794 Cc: 12794@debbugs.gnu.org, Ganton , Bob Proulx X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) Dear Linda, On 11/07/2012 10:06 AM, Linda Walsh wrote: > That something appears "open" to > contributing, means nothing by itself. yes, it does (see below). > I've seen more than one open > source projects that claimed to be "open", only to see patches to > correct design problems, persistently ignored for personal or political > reasons -- even when such flaws clearly couldn't be justified on > objective, sound, engineering principles. That's the idea behind "open source" - if you don't like what a program is doing, or when you have a special reason for the tool behaving different in your personal, political, or even commercial environment, then take the sources, modify them to your needs and use the changed tool. Even spread it around if you like (with the changed sources of course ...). Everybody knows there are other tools with other licenses where you don't get this chance. [hey, now I also avoid using 'you', funny. So let's use that *BAD* word again. ;-) ] The problem comes when you want to have your change in *that* package everyone is using, e.g. coreutils. As there are *many* users, these tools have to do the right thing for them all. And if the change would break what many users are expecting from that tool, or even what they are used to, then there must be very good reasons to do the change. Going back to #12794: there were several misunderstanding in the discussion, which IMO are all clear now: Bob referred to a mail of Padraig which never reached Ganton. Well ... let's move on. Re. dd's output: comparing that little glitch regarding output behavior we are used from newer tools with the power of dd, I must say I'm very happy how it is. And if somebody does't like that, then [s]he is free to use the new "status=none" (unless using a non-GNU dd, of course). Have a nice day, Berny From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Fri Nov 16 14:56:24 2012 Received: (at 12794) by debbugs.gnu.org; 16 Nov 2012 19:56:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:49138 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TZS1Y-0002Ha-4X for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:56:24 -0500 Received: from joseki.proulx.com ([216.17.153.58]:39845) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TZS1V-0002HS-Dz for 12794@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:56:23 -0500 Received: from hysteria.proulx.com (hysteria.proulx.com [192.168.230.119]) by joseki.proulx.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 828A9211D6 for <12794@debbugs.gnu.org>; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:55:32 -0700 (MST) Received: by hysteria.proulx.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 48DF22DCC7; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:55:32 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:55:32 -0700 From: Bob Proulx To: 12794@debbugs.gnu.org Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr Message-ID: <20121116195532.GA19601@hysteria.proulx.com> References: <201211031628.49139.kubry@terra.com> <201211052243.09280.kubry@terra.com> <5098343C.6030400@redhat.com> <201211052356.47671.kubry@terra.com> <20121105235714.GA20906@hysteria.proulx.com> <509A248A.90508@tlinx.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <509A248A.90508@tlinx.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 12794 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) Linda Walsh wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > > > You're 40 years too late on this one. > > > This kind of condescending attitudes do not improve matters. > > > > Please no ad-hominem attacks. Thanks. > > What is an ad-hominem attack? Isn't that an attack against the person? > > Clearly, the poster was talking about an attitude that came across > as condescending. Yes. And I am sure that it wasn't meant kindly. It certainly wasn't a neutral tone. It was a negative statement about the sender which contained emotional overtones. Even though it didn't contain "you" it was still clearly targeting the message human person sender with a negative emotional statement. If I were going to challenge the statement I would say something more along the lines of "Just because a bug is long standing isn't it still a bug and as such shouldn't it still be fixed? We have fixed long standing bugs before. Why is this one different?" This never moves toward any attacks against the person. It stays purely on the topic points. (Meanwhile note that I am simply playing advocate here and think that status=none is the best answer.) > I've been told on this list, that using "you" was considered > attacking, even though in my writing I'd specifically stayed away > from any name-calling or ad-hominem attacks, the simple use of "you" > was considered enough to make my message "attacking". The use of "you" or lack of it doesn't always mean one thing or another. Language is subtle and it means what we want it to mean. Any hard rule always has ways to be subverted. But use of "you" is definitely a warning sign because it is designating a person as the recipient of the exchange. If the sender is saying good things then the recipient won't mind and perhaps will be flattered. But if not then the recipient is going to feel the heat as a flame. Please keep discussion on the mailing lists neutral and professional in tone. It is that simple. > Also some have said POSIX was "descriptive" and such is stated in > their initial mission statement. ... To use MS-lingo, this was the > "Embrace" phase. POSIX has moved beyond that phase and now is in > the "Extend" phase, where it has become prescriptive -- not > describing existing practice, but dictating new and incompatible > behaviors. FWIW I agree. I have said so myself on several occasions. > Besides the shift from descriptive to prescriptive, POSIX has also > shifted from being a program-portability standard -- a description > of features programs could rely on being there in order to aid > portability, it has also expanded into prescribing User Interface > behaviors that NOT ONLY, exceed it's purpose in providing a base for > program portability, but actually harm program portability. > Prioritizing user-interface design on the command line over program > portability goes against the core-purpose of the standard, yet this > is what has happened, approximately after the 2001 POSIX updates. Yep. > The POSIX standard, 'now', no longer follows it's initial mission > statement, and is is now a corporate tool for controlling the open > source community. No. The Austin Group oversees the standard. Anyone can contribute. The only issue is available time and effort and the ability to work with a group. But I don't think it is under corporate control. I think the community of new generation contributors has more control. > Whether or not POSIX is being moved into the extinguish phase is > arguable while it is in process, but it must be noted, that > Microsoft, which supported POSIX in its earliest forms in the late > 90's with it's POSIX subsystem, now feels they have no more need to > support or provide POSIX compatibility, since starting with Windows > 8, their POSIX subsystem is dead. I don't use Microsoft systems when I can avoid it. So this particular issue doesn't affect me very much. Although I care anyway since so many other people use Microsoft systems. Because I do travel and bank and watch movies and do all of the things that people do with their life and a very large amount of that is affected by Microsoft software. But it is their company. What would be the proposal to improve the situation at Microsoft? *Can* anything be done? I don't think so. They are going to do what they are going to do. They are one of the proverbial 800lb gorillas. > Buying into POSIX changes that reduce functionality and break > previous program compatibility would seem to be a good way to > accelerate the last phase, but ironically, reverting incompatible > behaviors is now seen as creating new incompatibilities -- even when > it would be impossible for new programs to have been written to rely > on those incompatibilities as they are features that have been > removed -- i.e. it would be impossible for a useful program to rely > on something that is guaranteed not to work. Since we are talking about 'dd' then POSIX hasn't *changed* anything that I know of on that topic. It is the same as it has been. And so has 'dd'. So I don't know what you are talking about. POSIX is stabilizing dd at this point. HP-UX dd, AIX dd, GNU dd. (If you are talking about head and tail and the -n option changes then I agree. But we were talking about dd here. Let's not talk about head or tail here in this dd bug log. We have drifted off and around enough as it is already. If you want to talk about head and tail -n then let's talk about it in the coreutils@gnu.org discussion list. But that is also so much water under the bridge. I would rather not drag through it again.) > So -- I'm just clarifying: POSIX isn't want it used to be. It never was. :-) The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be. --Paul Valery Bob From unknown Tue Aug 19 08:37:09 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 12:24:05 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator