From: Padraig Brady (padraig at domain antefacto.com)
Date: Tue 25 Jun 2002 - 16:16:50 IST
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...
They could just do the following after the copy:
ln rm unlink
ln ln link (hmm :-))
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:17:32 GMT