From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Oct 14 16:06:11 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA14490 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:06:11 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from geo.geocast.net (geo.geocast.net [128.177.240.120]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA14479 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:06:09 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from castor@geocast.net) Received: from localhost (castor@localhost) by geo.geocast.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA05793 for ; Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:05:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 16:05:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Castor Fu To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: test(1), symlinks, -h, and -L Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Does FreeBSD's test(1) accept only the '-h' flag when testing for a symbolic link in compliance with some proposed standard? If so, what standard? It seems there is a fair amount of disagreement on the 'right' thing: -h -L preference? Solaris 2.x yes yes -h -- -L is deprecated FreeBSD yes no -h -- -L doesn't work at all NetBSD yes yes -L -- -h is deprecated Linux yes yes -L -- -h is undocumented The lack of support for '-L' in FreeBSD's test annoyingly breaks compatibility between FreeBSD & NetBSD. This would be less annoying if people agreed on which use was deprecated. Would people object strongly to supporting both and choosing a side? -castor To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message