Hi Haelwenn, On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 07:39:47PM +0100, Haelwenn (lanodan) Monnier wrote: > There might be a useful difference between -q and 2>/dev/null > if it's changed to only silence creation errors as seen in some > implementations manuals from note 0006166: > <https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1616#c6166> > > While 2>/dev/null would also hide at least: > - name generation errors when custom, like getrandom() failure > - badly formed template errors, for which mkstemp()/mkdtemp() uses EINVAL > > On a mote personal note, I found it easy enough to implement this kind of -q, > while if it would be all errors then I'd feel like it would be purely > redundant with 2>/dev/null.
If -q should not be equivalent to 2>/dev/null, this should be well documented in the standard. The current text listed in <https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1616> doesn't sound good to me. So, either the feature should be removed, or the specification should be fixed. And if we keep it, we should make sure that all implementations behave like that (or that the implementations that differ would be willing to adapt, or are going to EOL soon). Have a lovely day! Alex -- <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
