Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:27:40 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD-Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: mktemp(1) in /tmp or $PWD? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1002252225410.50330@qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <7d6fde3d1002252100oc64434ci5f6783ff10a9f0ea@mail.gmail.com> References: <7d6fde3d1002251850m3d32904emece0182e905b84c5@mail.gmail.com> <7d6fde3d1002252100oc64434ci5f6783ff10a9f0ea@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Garrett Cooper wrote: > So what I did was I wrote up a patch to be *I know... here it comes* > more like GNU coreutils' copy of mktemp. What's the motivation for this? I'm a little confused about why we'd want to change this when the -t option already exists. Also, does POSIX say anything about what the default should be? Doug -- Improve the effectiveness of your Internet presence with a domain name makeover! http://SupersetSolutions.com/ Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1002252225410.50330>