kevin lyda wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2002 at 03:49:31PM +0100, Padraig Brady wrote:
>>>2. Obviously being POSIX compliant is good. I'm not
>> complaining about being compliant, I'm complaining
>> that the standard seems stupid in this regard.
>>>> apparently rms was involved in the posix process and got the
> POSIXLY_CORRECT environment var to hide most of the posix silliness
> (512 byte blocks the default for things like df or ls for instance).
> he said later he regretted not calling it POSIX_ME_HARDER.
:-)
Actually it must be said that the POSIX standard is mostly
good, getting rid of things like options not starting with - etc.
>>>3. At least the implementation should not have created
>> 2 new files. It just seems wrong.
>>>> pretty much no other way to get the commands. packagers could create
> a fileutils-POSIX_ME_HARDER package, but then that starts a whole
> 'nother debate...
I'm confused.
They could just do the following after the copy:
ln rm unlink
ln ln link (hmm :-))
Padraig.
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
