Posix Compliance [Was Re: Glibc-2.3.3 tarball]
gschafer at zip.com.au
Thu Jan 15 16:15:29 PST 2004
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 06:54:26PM +1100, Ryan.Oliver at pha.com.au wrote:
> Ideally however we'd just hack core/diffutils to honor the POSIXLY_CORRECT
> environment variable (as it fscking well should, this
> should be the trigger, if you want strict conformance, set the env var).
That's what the RH patch does. But Jim M. specifically discusses the
philosophy of POSIXLY_CORRECT in that thread I quoted earlier and he feels
it's not appropriate. Damn :-( Oh well, its no biggie. The patch I've
proposed is mega simple and achieves similar flexibility, albeit with a
differently named env var.
> You don't get too far with that
> (I got a nice short response from Zack Weinberg on the gcc list when
> this first popped up may last year,
> "30 years of shell scripts rely on the old syntax,
> put the old behaviour back". :-) ).
Yeah, Zack W. and some of his gcc mates have been the most vocal critics of
the coreutils decision.
> "Many of the GNU tools comply with POSIX by default, except for where the
> author thinks the POSIX standard is wrong or dumb. :) As a result, some
> programs also check if a variable named POSIX_ME_HARDER is set as an
> acceptable alias for POSIXLY_CORRECT"
POSIX_ME_HARDER, LOL, classic :-)
More information about the lfs-dev