On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 02:39 -0500, Paul Eggert wrote: > 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
Right, but here you are setting _POSIX2_VERSION to something else. I just used the default for my environment (FC3) which doesn't seem to have _POSIX2_VERSION set. > In coreutils' defense, the standard in question was the > latest-and-greatest version until 2001. (And the 2001 standard broke > lots more shell scripts. :-) Oh yipee :) > 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. Right, in this case the installers in question contain GNU/Linux binaries so portability to Solaris isn't a large concern. > 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. Yes I think our only solution is to update the templates and ask people to rebuild their installers, then put a notice on our website informing people about the _POSIX2_VERSION workaround. thanks -mike _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
