Re: tail question

2004-01-22 Thread Bob Proulx
Paul Eggert wrote: > The only thing that's changed recently is the choice of the default > behavior if neither the installer nor the user specifies a preference. > In this case, coreutils looks at 's _POSIX2_VERSION to > determine the system default. Some implementations have recently > claimed (t

Re: tail question

2004-01-22 Thread Paul Jarc
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Alfred, your quoting makes it hard to tell that the quote from the >previous message is not just another paragraph taken from the >manual. > > Well, I can start putting normal double-quoting marks around the text > instead of indenting it w

Re: tail question

2004-01-22 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
> You could set _POSIX2_VERSION on the GNU/Linux system to 199209. From > (coreutils)Standards conformance ... > The GNU utilities normally conform to the version of POSIX that is > standard for your system. To cause them to conform to a different ... >If there are o

Re: tail question

2004-01-21 Thread Paul Eggert
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) writes: > This is unclear to me. It sounds like what you mean is that the > *spec* change predates 4.5.1, but the actually-exhibited *behavior* > change is only a few months old. Is that right? I meant that the coreutils code itself introduced these changes before

Re: tail question

2004-01-21 Thread Paul Jarc
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The 'tail -1' behavior change has been around for a couple of years > anyway: it predates coreutils 4.5.1, the first version of coreutils > proper. It didn't become much of an issue, though, until systems > appeared that claimed conformance to the 2001 POSI

Re: tail question

2004-01-21 Thread Paul Eggert
Warren L Dodge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Another person told me about this to force old behavior. > > ./configure CPPFLAGS=-D_POSIX2_VERSION=199209 > > Should I do this with "all" configures to make sure of what I have? Better is "./configure DEFAULT_POSIX2_VERSION=199209" as described in

Re: tail question

2004-01-21 Thread Paul Eggert
Warren L Dodge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On the two solaris systems the following command works. > tail -1 file > On linux is complains and says to use > tail -n 1 file > Any idea what caused this? It's because your GNU/Linux systems have that claim conformance to POSIX 1003.1-2001, wher

Re: tail question

2004-01-21 Thread Bob Proulx
Warren L Dodge wrote: > I built coreutils-5.0 on solaris 2.51, solaris 8, and linux Nice! So now you have the same utilities available on all three of those types of systems. > On the two solaris systems the following command works. > tail -1 file You mean on solaris using which set of utilitie

Re: tail question

2004-01-21 Thread Paul Jarc
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You could set _POSIX2_VERSION on the GNU/Linux system to 199209. From > (coreutils)Standards conformance ... > The GNU utilities normally conform to the version of POSIX that is > standard for your system. To cause them to conform to a differen

Re: tail question

2004-01-21 Thread Alfred M. Szmidt
As we work in a multi-platform environment it is important to remain compatible with the Solaris utilities. You could set _POSIX2_VERSION on the GNU/Linux system to 199209. From (coreutils)Standards conformance In a few cases, the GNU utilities' default behavior is incompatible with t

tail question

2004-01-21 Thread Warren L Dodge
I built coreutils-5.0 on solaris 2.51, solaris 8, and linux On the two solaris systems the following command works. tail -1 file On linux is complains and says to use tail -n 1 file "head" has the same issue. Any idea what caused this? As we work in a multi-platform environment it is impor