Package: coreutils
Version: 5.96-3
Followup-For: Bug #339085
I want to add emphasis and additional justification to Josh Triplett's
request that the old (POSIX-1992) command line syntax continue to work.
On this issue, I speak primarily as a (semi-retired) GCC maintainer.
Every other month or so
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:35:07PM -0700, you wrote:
detail, as of POSIX-1992. I know for a fact that this is the case for
releases of Solaris up to and including (2.)8, and I strongly suspect
That's simply not true. Solaris has obsolete syntax in /usr/bin, and
more modern syntax in /usr/xpg4
Zack Weinberg wrote:
> It has also been reported to be the case for various releases of
> HP-UX and AIX. On these systems, POSIX-2001 syntax like "tail -n 1"
> simply *does not work*.
Just a detail clarification...
HP-UX 10.20, arguably the oldest HP-UX version still in active use
anywhere, suppo
On 6/3/06, Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just a detail clarification...
HP-UX 10.20, arguably the oldest HP-UX version still in active use
anywhere, supports the 'tail -n#' syntax.
Are you absolutely certain that the version of tail in /bin or
/usr/bin supports that syntax? I have thi
On 6/3/06, Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 02, 2006 at 08:35:07PM -0700, you wrote:
>detail, as of POSIX-1992. I know for a fact that this is the case for
>releases of Solaris up to and including (2.)8, and I strongly suspect
That's simply not true. Solaris has obsolete syn
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 12:56:30PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
[And, for the record, official end-of-life dates have approximately
zero effect on whether or not GCC drops support for a system, and are
therefore not useful evidence for this argument.]
Frankly, that's your problem, not my problem
On 6/3/06, Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 12:56:30PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>[And, for the record, official end-of-life dates have approximately
>zero effect on whether or not GCC drops support for a system, and are
>therefore not useful evidence for this ar
Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Just a detail clarification...
> > HP-UX 10.20, arguably the oldest HP-UX version still in active use
> > anywhere, supports the 'tail -n#' syntax.
>
> Are you absolutely certain that the version of tail in /bin or
> /usr/bin supports that syntax?
Yes.
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 07:30:34PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
The way I see it, as long as upstream and 3rd-party software
developers are in the position GCC is in - and GCC continues to
support such old systems because our users demand it, not because we
want to - the constraints those old sys
Le Dim 4 Juin 2006 13:36, Michael Stone a écrit :
> On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 07:30:34PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >The way I see it, as long as upstream and 3rd-party software
> >developers are in the position GCC is in - and GCC continues to
> >support such old systems because our users demand
I could say that I think you're seriously underestimating the problem
here, but you probably think I'm seriously overestimating it, and
we're not going to get anywhere playing is-not, is-so games.
Instead, I'll ask again: What do you see as the advantage of removing
support for these older comman
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> what is the point of not supporting tail +n syntax, does it breaks
> anything ?
A conforming POSIX 1003.1-2001 implementation is supposed to treat
arguments with a leading "+" as a file name, not as an option. Some
people do actually start file names with a "+" sign. (O
Le Lun 5 Juin 2006 06:05, Bob Proulx a écrit :
> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > what is the point of not supporting tail +n syntax, does it breaks
> > anything ?
>
> A conforming POSIX 1003.1-2001 implementation is supposed to treat
> arguments with a leading "+" as a file name, not as an option. Some
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 10:54:28AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
I really am convinced that change would make more harm that il would
avoid.
Fine, argue upstream & with the posix committee.
Mike Stone
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble?
14 matches
Mail list logo
