In message <cagwoe2z+cs5zrx4nomiuxb5f04tp5wmkuxw67cqtoezwihw...@mail.gmail.com> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fernando_Apestegu=EDa?= <fernando.apesteg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Yes, that is what I tested. Behavior before (truncated output) and after >(correct output) applying the patch. OK, good. Thanks. >If this is going to be the final version of the patch, i.e. if it is going >to include the -q flag, then the patch needs to be extended to reflect that >in nc(1) man page. I am in complete agreement that _if_ a new option is implemented within nc then it really must also be properly documented in the associated man page. As I have expressed however, it is my hope that whoever decides these things will decide to simply fix the bug in nc and to _not_ even bother to introduce an option which might help to preserve ``backward compatability'' with the current (broken) behavior of nc. I simply do not believe that the current (arguably "broken") behavior of nc is of any particular value to anybody. The only reason I proposed a patch that included an option to elicit the (non-broken) behavior was because I have the humility to admit that I am not actually omniscient with respect to other people's needs. Regards, rfg _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
