bdubbs at swbell.net
Sun Jan 11 14:57:44 PST 2004
Greg Schafer wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 08:26:36PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>>Thanks for the pointer. That explains the problem.
>>Now, the issue is how LFS should handle it. IMHO we should include a
>>patch that enables the old functionality. We should also explain the
>>issue in the text and let the user decide whether to use the patch or not.
>Yes, that's basically what the proposal is. Except with one major difference
>-- the LFS book must take a default stand, and that stand is to apply the
>patch. Leaving it optional will most certainly lead to grief. We cannot
>leave that avenue open. But I suppose we could word it in such a way where
>the consequences of not patching are clear.
Thats what I meant. Probably in the part that explains the patch.
Something like: "This patch restores compatability with many scripts of
several programs (e.g. head, tail, et al.) by restoring an option of
-<number> instead of -n <number>. This capability has been declared
obsolete, but the traditional behavior is so pervasive that we recommend
Personally, I think the new behavior is more consistent and I won't put
it in _my_ personal builds.
More information about the lfs-dev