Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is 'ls -1' really non-portable, or is the manual missing '1' from its list of > portable options? Is there any known ls where 'ls -1 | blah' and 'ls | blah' > behave differently?
I don't know of any, except where users (mistakenly) define their own "ls". I'd omit the "-1". > Also, does this attempt to shave processes in the autoconf testsuite look > valid? [Lest you get a mistaken idea about my abilities, my sed-foo isn't > that > strong: I had to copy liberally from the 'info sed' manual.] Is it really that important to shave a process here? Wow. Personally I'd stick with "sort -u".
