On Mittwoch, 26. September 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote: > Neil Bothwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:34:41 +0200, Alexander Skwar wrote: > >> What does this have to do with GNU tar and it adding superflous > >> options? Quite a lot. -j et.al. are non-standard options. If a > >> (badly written) script relies on the presence of -j, this script > >> won't work with a POSIX compliant tar > > > > The script is only badly written if it is supposed to be POSIX > > compliant. Additional features can enhance a program > > Given that we're talking about use of non-standard options present > only in GNU tar vs. easily accessible standard compliant ways > of solving the same problem: No, a script is badly written, if it > makes use of non-standard options.
a script that is not supposed to be portable to a POSIX-only system, can be written in any way the host system supports. So it is not 'broken' nor 'badly written'. Please calm down. Ok? > > > and make scripts > > using it more readable/efficient/compact, providing the environment does > > not require POSIX-compliance. e.g. portage can use tar-specific > > enhancements if tar is in system on all profiles. > > Yes, it's very bad that Gentoo scripts don't limit themselves to > POSIX. Another windmill to fight against. > no. Please stop that nonesense, ok? Gentoo scripts are gentoo scripts. Not AIX, Solaris or HP-UX scripts (systems who are very arcane in a lot of aspects). So gentoo scripts don't need to be portable, so they don't need to be POSIX compliant. And since gentoo is a linux distribution and almost all linux distributions use the gnu-userland, gnu-compatibility is more than enough for portability to other linux distributions. And some last questions: if POSIX is so great, why is there stuff like 'SUS', 'LSB', and why has POSIX many different versions? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
