Perhaps a real life example of what you have been doing with xargs before and
after your change would be helpful.
>
> On Oct 13, 2017 at 5:03 PM, <Raul Miller> wrote:
>
>
> Portability? It does seem to me that the implementation should be portable.
> Then if someone needs it elsewhere they can have it elsewhere. But I think
> that that's more about pledge than anything else (strnsubst and strtonum
> maybe deserving honorable mention). Meanwhile, I guess this would also need a
> man page update with a portability caution until enough other implementations
> deploy this (probably 10 years or longer). I could supply that if this was
> the only remaining issue. And, ok, I do not expect this to be an immediately
> useful fix for any of my problems. I've lived with this problem for a very
> long time... But maybe there are other people issues also? I know any choice
> has its haters. However, in that first message you had said: "Because then
> you don't need xargs, normal tooling seperates each line into a seperate argv
> entry regardless of other spacing." If there's some existing way (portable or
> not) to build this kind of argv in a shell script - using newline separation
> an
d nothing else - I would really appreciate another hint. The only approaches I
know of are order of magnitude worse (heavy, inefficient and/or risky). On the
other hand if you just meant "xargs already splits on newlines and a bunch of
other stuff" then that gets back into standards interpretation and history
land. Thanks, -- Raul On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote: >>
Ok, I am curious - what new problems would this create? > > I explained in
the first mail.
>
