Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2002 01:48:36 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@starjuice.net> Cc: Tim Robbins <tim@robbins.dropbear.id.au>, <freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: bin/35201: link and unlink are not SUSv2-compliant as the manpage states Message-ID: <20020223014328.M25568-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <54422.1014387612@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > On Fri, 22 Feb 2002 16:18:52 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: > > > The whole point of these alternatives to ln/rm is that they have a > > simple, optionless interface. :-( Their main point is that they don't adjust the pathnames like ln/rm. > Bleh, what an entirely useless response. :-) > > I should have gone on to say... > > However, standards conformance is probably important, even here. If > scripts expect 'link -- foo bar' to work, and yet it breaks in FreeBSD, > that'll be bad. I don't think using getopt() is such a good idea any more :-). But people are used to its behaviour. No one expects "ls -foo" to list "-foo". Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020223014328.M25568-100000>