Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > That sounds like the one, yes. Though 5.3.0 doesn't seem to show it.
Odd; it shows it for me. $ _POSIX2_VERSION=199209 tail -c 123 tail: cannot open `123' for reading: No such file or directory $ tail --version | head -n 1 tail (GNU coreutils) 5.3.0 > I can't help but wonder why compatibility with standards from 1978 In coreutils' defense, the standard in question was the latest-and-greatest version until 2001. (And the 2001 standard broke lots more shell scripts. :-) > Unfortunately setting _POSIX2_VERSION doesn't help me. The errant > command is inside the stub code of a generic installer builder which is > widely distributed. Well, to some extent the horse is out of the barn door already. The behavior you're objecting to is not just that of coreutils 5.3.0; it's also that of Solaris 9 /bin/tail, for example, and I assume for many other "tail" implementations. If you're willing to assume just GNU/Linux, you can put "_POSIX2_VERSION=200112" into a README file, or into a wrapper around the nonportable installer. If you want to be more portable than that, you can edit the output of the buggy builder of nonportable installers. Or you can issue a warning if you detect a maintainer using a buggy installer builder. Perhaps there are other solutions (I don't know the details of your situation). _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
