From owner-freebsd-bugs Mon Dec 31 8:50: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC33A37B426 for ; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:50:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id fBVGo2Q50563; Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:50:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:50:02 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200112311650.fBVGo2Q50563@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Mike Heffner Subject: Re: bin/32935: /bin/sh builtin echo command Reply-To: Mike Heffner Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR bin/32935; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Mike Heffner To: Sheldon Hearn Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/32935: /bin/sh builtin echo command Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 11:46:20 -0500 (EST) On 31-Dec-2001 Sheldon Hearn wrote: | | | On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 03:05:51 EST, Mike Heffner wrote: | |> Looks ok, except that I think in the '#define eflag 1' case it should |> still accept '-ne' as valid and just ignore the 'e'. How about this: | | Thanks, Mike. | | But why would you want to accept an option that you don't support? | | Personally, I don't think -e support needs to be optional. :-) | Well, I guess I'm not sure as to the context of when the defined eflag override is used. IMO, if a shell script is using 'echo -e blah', then it shouldn't break on an 'echo' that has been compiled with the eflag implicitly enabled. Also, I was just following the original broken code, so that the previous test case would work as before. ;) Mike -- Mike Heffner Fredericksburg, VA To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message