Re: FAIL: seq.log

[Jim Meyering]

Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> Thanks for reporting this.  Jim worked around the problem by changing
> the test to specify 10.94, but I think it's nicer to fix 'seq' instead
> to do the right thing with cases like this.  While fixing this bug I
> noticed and fixed another one, with %% in the formats.  Here's a patch
> for both bugs (I got lazy and fixed them both instead of breaking it
> up into two patches, sorry....)
>
> 2007-11-03  Paul Eggert  <address@hidden>
>
>       Fix bug with "seq 10.8 0.1 10.95", plus another bug with %% in format.
...

Thanks for doing that.
I've applied it as a single change set, adding a NEWS entry.
I did try to separate them, but they're intertwined enough
that it's not worthwhile.