>On 2025-07-27 17:26, Stan Marsh wrote: >> Just out of curiosity, I note that you (Paul) say that "pr" is "obsolete".
>> This surprises me, since I still use it every day. >I'm not proposing that we remove pr, just that it's not high priority. And I wasn't suggesting that you (or anyone) was proposing to remove it. Obviously, doing so would break POSIX... Not to mention millions of scripts worldwide. I guess we just have a little bit different definitions of the word "obsolete". It sounds like your definition is "Not being actively maintained and improved". I really don't think any of these utilities are "obsolete" (by my definition). >As this is not a bug I'll be bold and close the bug report. Quite so. It'd be nice if there as some way to prevent the system from assigning a bug number. I.e., some kind of code you could put in your email to say "This is not a bug; it is just meta". Or if there was a "help-coreutils" list to which this sort of thing could be posted. (Note that some of the other lists I follow have both bug- and help- versions) >But yes, pr is obsolete. Just like 'shred' is obsolete. Just out of curiosity, why is shred obsolete? >Just like my car is obsolete. Doesn't mean we're gonna remove 'pr' or that I'll >stop driving my car. I suppose my car is obsolete as well. But it works fine for me. Anyway, feel free to answer or ignore these questions as you see fit. ================================================================================= Please do not send me replies to my posts on the list. I always read the replies via the web archive, so CC'ing to me is unnecessary. Note that they always end up in my Spam file anyway, so it is annoying to have to periodically clean that out.
