Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 09:00:04 +0000 From: "J. Mallett" <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG> To: "Tim J. Robbins" <tim@robbins.dropbear.id.au> Cc: "J. Mallett" <jmallett@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-audit@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: patch for review: xargs standards compliance Message-ID: <20020316090004.A26394@FreeBSD.ORG> In-Reply-To: <20020316192629.A5254@descent.robbins.dropbear.id.au> References: <20020315231100.A20942@FreeBSD.ORG> <20020316192629.A5254@descent.robbins.dropbear.id.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 07:26:29PM +1100, Tim J. Robbins wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 11:11:00PM +0000, J. Mallett wrote: > > > In detail, it adds: -E, -I, -L, -t; As far as flags go. > > > > I'm looking to commit this after the weekend, so review would be > > appreciated, comments and flames welcome... Three days sound good? > > Check that the way -I handles empty strings (xargs -I "") is what you > intend. Solaris checks that the argument is not empty: > xargs: Must specify subargment for -I Solaris not recognising that '' and "" are arguments is probably a difference in getopt implementations? We don't check for -J, should I really try to check for -I? I'm happy to, I just don't know if this is standard practice, and so on. Thanks /j. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-audit" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020316090004.A26394>