On 2/22/07, Matthew Burgess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks Dan. The patches look fine to me. Just one question though. In patch > 1, would it not be cleaner to simply use `printf' rather than try to find a > non-broken `echo'?
That was the discussion with Bruce here: http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2007-February/058937.html The problem with using printf is that POSIX doesn't say that it needs to be a builtin (although it is in dash) and the coreutils executable is in /usr/bin. The other reason is that most of the LFSers seem to be more familiar with echo and not as familiar with the printf syntax. The first patches I attached at the beginning of this thread used printf. I don't feel that strongly either way, so it can certainly be discussed further. In either case, it requires the script to use a different syntax ($ECHO or printf) if they need the escape sequences. -- Dan -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
