Jan Palus <jpalus@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Note that original version was "%0.s" in which there is some ambiguity > whether "0" is a flag or field width and not "%.0s" in which "0" indeed > would mean precision. Ah, I missed that part. Also thanks for filling in the "printf from coreutils is the one that has issues with the code". >> Anybody can help that "further polishing as suggested" step, and >> when the patch is left in limbo for too long, I might step in to do >> it myself (when I have no other better things to do), but it is >> customary around here that the original patch submitter does so. > > I was about to follow-up but didn't find time. Sorry it took so long. > I will post v2 shortly. Thanks.
