Paul Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-12-01 at 10:33 +0000, James Youngman wrote: >> If you can rely enough on the platform being POSIX-conforming for -P >> to work, then why not just use Perl's POSIX module? > > On some embedded systems where the rootfs is in a ramdisk I use, for > example, microperl. This is an amazingly flexible and powerful > scripting language with a very small footprint, BUT it contains no Perl > modules whatsoever. Some of these systems use busybox pwd but not all. > > And of course there are other scripting languages that would like to > invoke pwd that don't have their own built-in modules. Even just > writing a portable sh script isn't easy since POSIX-compliant sh's are > not required to have a built-in pwd. > > I should admit that regardless of how this turns out I'll have to take > defensive measures since any change in coreutils, even if made today, > can't be relied upon "in the wild" for many years to come. Still, we > should DTRT where possible.
We're just waiting for someone to write the patch. If you can spare the time to do the complete job, please let us know. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
