Update of bug #20970 (project findutils):
Status: Confirmed = Fixed
Assigned to: ericb = jay
___
Reply to this item at:
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #20970 (project findutils):
The Austin Group interpretation was issued/approved today.
http://www.opengroup.org/austin/interps/uploads/40/14959/AI-186.txt
___
Reply to this item at:
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #20970 (project findutils):
Partly because we currently seem to be following common practice, I would be
inclined to ask for a POSIX interp (i.e. for the current issues standard), or
at least comment from the Austin Group, before changing our current behaviour.
The
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #20970 (project findutils):
I've raised the issue with the Austin Group. Hopefully an interp will be
reached before POSIX 200x is finalized:
https://www.opengroup.org/sophocles/show_mail.tpl?CALLER=index.tplsource=Llistname=austin-review-lid=2512
Update of bug #20970 (project findutils):
Depends on: = bugs #20688
___
Follow-up Comment #1:
Part of me was inclined to mark this as invalid, since other implementations
that claim to
Update of bug #20970 (project findutils):
Status:None = Confirmed
Assigned to:None = ericb
___
Reply to this item at:
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #20970 (project findutils):
Just for fun, I tried it on FreeBSD as well, with identical results to GNU
find. I had intuitively assumed that the -name thing was a no-brainer, for
basically the reasons you mentioned (though I don't have a copy of POSIX
available), but it
