According to
$ man [ | grep -A4 -e "-L.*f"
-L file
True if file exists and is a symbolic link. This operator is for
compatibility purposes. Do not rely on its existence; use -h
instead.
I was hunting through /etc/daily for something and see 1.5 (the 0.5
being in a
On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 06:45:21PM -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
> According to
>
> $ man [ | grep -A4 -e "-L.*f"
> -L file
> True if file exists and is a symbolic link. This operator is for
> compatibility purposes. Do not rely on its existence; use -h
> instead.
>
> I
On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 06:45:21PM -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
> According to
>
> $ man [ | grep -A4 -e "-L.*f"
> -L file
> True if file exists and is a symbolic link. This operator is for
> compatibility purposes. Do not rely on its existence; use -h
> instead.
There
On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 03:05:24AM -0300, Crystal Kolipe wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 06:45:21PM -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
> > According to
> >
> > $ man [ | grep -A4 -e "-L.*f"
> > -L file
> > True if file exists and is a symbolic link. This operator is for
> > compatibi
Jason McIntyre writes:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2024 at 03:05:24AM -0300, Crystal Kolipe wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 15, 2024 at 06:45:21PM -0500, Tim Chase wrote:
> > > According to
> > >
> > > $ man [ | grep -A4 -e "-L.*f"
> > > -L file
> > > True if file exists and is a symbolic link. This
Not a bug.
But which one is preferable, test -L or test -h?
TLDR:
If you follow David Korn, -L is the way to go.
If you feel nostalgic about old SunOS, -h looks nicer.
Both were standardized in POSIX Issue 6 (2001), with no preference given there.
Both always worked on OpenBSD, no matter which bas
On 2024-06-18 00:10, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hence i suggest the patch below; OK?
Resolving the the apparent conflict of "don't use it" vs using it
by making both permissible works for me.
Thanks for researching the history on this and aligning them!
-tkc
I am finding myself in agreement.
Have we decided who will die on the hill?
Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Not a bug.
> But which one is preferable, test -L or test -h?
>
> TLDR:
> If you follow David Korn, -L is the way to go.
> If you feel nostalgic about old SunOS, -h looks nicer.
> Both were stand
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:10:03 +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> I admit that usually, when there are two equivalent syntaxes, deprecating
> one of them makes sense. But in this case, with POSIX setting both in
> stone over 20 years ago, attempting to die on that particular molehill
> seems pointless t
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 12:10:03AM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Not a bug.
> But which one is preferable, test -L or test -h?
>
> TLDR:
> If you follow David Korn, -L is the way to go.
> If you feel nostalgic about old SunOS, -h looks nicer.
> Both were standardized in POSIX Issue 6 (2001), with
Hello Theo,
Theo de Raadt wrote on Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 06:06:41PM -0600:
> I am finding myself in agreement.
> Have we decided who will die on the hill?
You volunteering?
Be careful, jsg@ apparently has impressively heavy artillery in place
that will blast you to shreds before you can even pro
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 11:32:58AM +1000, Jonathan Gray wrote:
>
> v8 (Feb 1985) and later /bin/test has -L, no -h
> from looking at tuhs archives
checking some earlier manual pages
sunos 1.1 1984, test does not have -h
.\" @(#)test.1 1.1 83/08/08 SMI; from UCB 4.2
.TH TEST 1 "18 January 1983"
12 matches
Mail list logo
