From owner-freebsd-bugs Thu Oct 12 9:20: 6 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C977E37B503 for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:20:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id JAA67593; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:20:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 09:20:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200010121620.JAA67593@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Subject: Re: bin/21918: Unjustified basename code removal and subsequent breakage Reply-To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR bin/21918; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav To: ak03@gte.com (Alexander N. Kabaev) Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bin/21918: Unjustified basename code removal and subsequent breakage Date: 12 Oct 2000 18:10:44 +0200 ak03@gte.com (Alexander N. Kabaev) writes: > >(And you didn't spot the real bug, either - but it can still be > > fixed by just rewording the if test) > Do you mean the basename(1) and basename(3) inconsistency described > in Bruse Evans message? Or there is something else I am missing? Something else - 'basename filename.ext.ext .ext' doesn't work the way it should. > Should we add something like the following to make FreeBSD basename > consistent with historic behaviour again? Yes. DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@ofug.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message