Re: portability of 'printf' command

rms said fine to adding printf to the list. It is committed now.

Re: portability of 'printf' command

Karl wrote: > I fully recognize that people are still running Solaris 7 (and probably > older versions) on mission-critical and other systems. But, how many of > those systems are (a) installing brand-new GNU packages (which > presumably wouldn't be happening on mission-critical systems) *and* >

Re: portability of 'printf' command

It seems that a conclusion has been reached that it is ok to depend on printf. Cheers! Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

Re: portability of 'printf' command

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > The versions of SunOS which were implied to be too old to support were > versions prior to Solaris 8 (SunOS 5.8), rather than SunOS 4. Solaris 5.6 (released in 1997) also already had /usr/bin/printf. Bruno

Re: portability of 'printf' command

"Dr. David Kirkby" writes: > Solaris 7 lacks this, so one does not have to go back as far as you believe. No, Solaris 7 has /usr/bin/printf. If memory serves, it also has a /bin/ksh that supports printf. See, for example,

Re: portability of 'printf' command

Hi Harlan, >From my POV, as long as one can bootstrap to the point where there is a sufficient base of utilities, all is well. I agree. "we can't get there from here". As has been said: install (say) coreutils-8.4, which does not require printf. This gives you printf. Then proceed

Re: portability of 'printf' command

Solaris 7 lacks this, so one does not have to go back as far as you believe. I fully recognize that people are still running Solaris 7 (and probably older versions) on mission-critical and other systems. But, how many of those systems are (a) installing brand-new GNU packages (which presu

Re: portability of 'printf' command

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Karl Berry wrote: >> >> In any event, I suspect that anyone using such an ancient system *and* >> installing a brand-new version of package foo that uses printf in its >> autoconfery would also have installed coreutils (or at least sh-utils), >> and ther

Re: portability of 'printf' command

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 w

Re: portability of 'printf' command

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

Re: portability of 'printf' command

On Wed, 7 Apr 2010, Karl Berry wrote: In any event, I suspect that anyone using such an ancient system *and* installing a brand-new version of package foo that uses printf in its autoconfery would also have installed coreutils (or at least sh-utils), and therefore will have printf after all. I

Re: portability of 'printf' command

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 listed in the permi

Re: portability of 'printf' command

On 04/05/2010 05:42 PM, Dr. David Kirkby wrote: >>> Is someone aware of a platform that does not have a /usr/bin/printf or >>> /bin/printf program? >> >> Given that Solaris 8 is about as far back as gnulib currently supports, >> I think we are at the point where the known lack of printf(1) in older

Re: portability of 'printf' command

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

Re: portability of 'printf' command

On Mon, 5 Apr 2010, 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 n

Re: portability of 'printf' command

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' built-in) on a

Re: portability of 'printf' command

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Thomas Dickey wrote: I am not able to find any. However, the behavior of printf surely changes over time as standards move forward. SunOS didn't have one (I don't see it in the manpages, at any rate). I did check SunOS 5.6 (S

Re: portability of 'printf' command

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Bruno Haible wrote: Is someone aware of a platform that does not have a /usr/bin/printf or /bin/printf program? I am not able to find any. However, the behavior of printf surely changes over time as standards move forward.

Re: portability of 'printf' command

Bruno Haible writes: > 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' built-in) on a > platform that does not have a /usr/bin/printf program, you would be hosed. > But which platforms are this? The Autoconf

Re: portability of 'printf' command

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Thomas Dickey wrote: I am not able to find any. However, the behavior of printf surely changes over time as standards move forward. SunOS didn't have one (I don't see it in the manpages, at any rate). I did check SunOS 5.6 (Solaris 2.6) and it does have one. SunOS 4 pr

Re: portability of 'printf' command

On Sun, 21 Feb 2010, Bruno Haible wrote: Is someone aware of a platform that does not have a /usr/bin/printf or /bin/printf program? I am not able to find any. However, the behavior of printf surely changes over time as standards move forward. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.

portability of 'printf' command

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' built-in) on a platform that does not have a /usr/bin/printf program, yo