Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 06:30:04 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/35201: link and unlink are not SUSv2-compliant as the manpage states Message-ID: <200202221430.g1MEU4p94783@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR bin/35201; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Peter Pentchev <roam@ringlet.net> To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> Cc: Tim Robbins <tim@robbins.dropbear.id.au>, bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/35201: link and unlink are not SUSv2-compliant as the manpage states Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:22:14 +0200 On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 04:20:12PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:18:52 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > The whole point of these alternatives to ln/rm is that they have a > > simple, optionless interface. :-( > > Bleh, what an entirely useless response. :-) > > I should have gone on to say... > > However, standards conformance is probably important, even here. If > scripts expect 'link -- foo bar' to work, and yet it breaks in FreeBSD, > that'll be bad. I agree with that; and IMHO, since these utilities are really *not* expected to do any options parsing, we should just accept Tim's original patches, even as they avoid getopt(3). G'luck, Peter -- Peter Pentchev roam@ringlet.net roam@FreeBSD.org PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553 I've heard that this sentence is a rumor. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200202221430.g1MEU4p94783>