[Emacs-bug-tracker] bug#5958: marked as done (Sort-8.4 bug)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:47:13 +0200
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#5958: Sort-8.4 bug
has caused the GNU bug report #5958,
regarding Sort-8.4 bug
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact address@hidden
immediately.)


-- 
5958: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=5958
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Sort-8.4 bug
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Fri, 16 Apr 2010 12:58:55 +0200
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
>
>
>
>
> Dear sirs,
>
> I think I have found a bug in sort coreutils command. When I type
>
> sort -T /tmp +1 -2 +2rn -3 +0 -1<<EOF
> perra/S perra 2.200000
> perro/PS perra 4.400000
> EOF
>
> The result is:
> perra/S perra 2.200000
> perro/PS perra 4.400000
>
>
> If I type
> sort -T /tmp +1 -2 +2n -3 +0 -1<<EOF
> perra/S perra 2.200000
> perro/PS perra 4.400000
> EOF
>
>
> The result is the same. If I make the same executions with sort 5.0 it
> works properly.
>
> Setting or unsetting the LC_ALL=POSIX environment variable has no effect.
>
> If you need more information, do not hesitate to ask.
>
> Best regards,
> Santiago Rodríguez.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#5958: Sort-8.4 bug
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:47:13 +0200
>
>
>
>
> address@hidden wrote:
> > Eric Blake writes:
> >> On 04/16/2010 04:58 AM, Santiago Rodriguez wrote:
> >> > I think I have found a bug in sort coreutils command. When I type
> >> >
> >> > sort -T /tmp +1 -2 +2rn -3 +0 -1<<EOF
> >> > perra/S perra 2.200000
> >> > perro/PS perra 4.400000
> >> > EOF
> >>
> >> Thanks for the report; however, this is not a bug.
> >>
> >> The syntax 'sort +1' is obsolete.  You are better off rewriting your
> >
> > When you pry it from my cold dead hands...
>
> It has been declared "obsolete" for a good reason: it is ambiguous.
> If you require that syntax, use some other sort program.
>
>
> --- End Message ---