From: kevin lyda (kevin at domain ie.suberic.net)
Date: Tue 25 Jun 2002 - 16:02:51 IST
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.
> 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
-- kevin at domain suberic.net that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to fork()'ed on 37058400 the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier meatspace place: inle than a sober one. the happiness of credulity is a http://suberic.net/~kevin cheap & dangerous quality -- g.b. shaw
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:17:31 GMT