[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) writes: > I think it ought to be possible for the user building coreutils to say > what version of conformance they want - say, with a ./configure > argument - and this should override the unistd.h definition.
That might be reasonable. The coreutils maintainer should have the final say about this, though. He's probably tired of the whole subject, though, so I suspect he won't make this change unless someone proposes a nice patch to do it. Your other arguments about whether long-option syntax like "--foo" is conforming are not that convincing. At any rate they were settled long ago, I suspect, when RMS proposed the current long-option syntax to conform to POSIX as a pure extension, replacing the old long-option syntax. Personally I'd rather not reopen that can of worms; life is too short! _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
