Should we imitate GNU test's insanity?
roam at ringlet.net
Thu Feb 10 08:49:22 UTC 2011
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 08:46:11PM +0000, Chris Rees wrote:
> Hi all,
> I've found so many cases of autoconf failing when porting Linux apps
> over, for example scilab and musicpd due to the happiness of GNU test
> to accept a == b rather than a = b.
> Rather than making a bug report that'll be brushed off (as my bug
> report for GNU find was), would it be unthinkable for me to make a
> patch for our test to make == acceptable, to stop some wasted porters'
> Obviously our behaviour is correct , I just wonder if we're cutting
> off our noses so as to speak.
>  http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/test.html
Funny that this should come up right now - just a couple of days ago, a
discussion started on the Austin Group list about extending test(1) with
some widely-used operators. I wonder if we shouldn't wait a bit to see
how that discussion turns out :)
For the follow-up discussion, see:
(and of course, if anybody knows of another web-based archive for the
Austin Group list that provides an easier way to see the follow-ups,
please share a link :)
Peter Pentchev roam at ringlet.net roam at FreeBSD.org peter at packetscale.com
PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
Hey, out there - is it *you* reading me, or is it someone else?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-standards/attachments/20110210/b8d814f2/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-standards