On Sunday 21 September 2008 18:32, Marc W. Abel wrote: > Thanks to everyone participating in this discussion. I really like all > this attention to detail. > > Program \e == \033 ? > --------------------------------------- > bash echo yes > bash printf yes > coreutils echo no > coreutils printf no > > I'm not sure (vda) how you'll adopt "their" behavior, as "they" differ.
"their" means "standard tools on Linux", for some definition of "standard". In this case, ash builtins should try to mimic bash builtins, echo and printf applets should mimic coreutils. But in the case of \e it is questionable whether busybox should mimic them THAT closely, as this (1) requires more complicated code and (2) it may happen so that GNU will eventually fix the dicrepancy, at which point we will need to undo all the work we did to match them. > It comes down to scope; I don't think BusyBox has ever adopted bash as a > standard to follow, Well, ash tries to do that to some extent. > On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 06:51:51PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > Can you push bash and coreutils (echo and printf utilities in particular) > > to decide what is the right thing to do? > > > > busybox will then just adopt their behavior. I still think this is a best way to attck this problem. Just ask bash and coreutils guys, do they plan to unify their behavior? -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/busybox
