Karl Berry wrote:
And the reason that I would _like_ to have printf(1) added to the list
of portable tools is because of the number of non-portable shell scripts
that are currently using 'echo -n', which is doomed to failure in some
shells, instead of printf because printf was not
Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/-10/-28163 12:59 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
Is the 'printf' command portable enough to be used in configure files
and autoconf macros?
The GNU Coding Standards [1] don't mention it as a portable utility. Indeed,
when you use bash version 1 (which does not have 'printf' buil
