Re: ls.1: incorrect -O flag description

2024-10-11 Thread tlaronde
On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 05:35:11AM +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote: > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 21:37:15 +0200, tlaro...@kergis.com wrote: > > > The -O (not a POSIX one) flag seems incorrectly described in the manual > > page. > > > > What it does (from a cursory look at the sources, matching the resul

fts.3 vs nftw.3: POSIX and legacy

2024-10-11 Thread tlaronde
The ftw(3) man page states: These functions are provided for compatibility with legacy code. New code should use the fts(3) functions. and the fts(3) man page has: The fts utility was expected to be included in the IEEE Std 1003.1-1988 ("POSIX.1") revision. But twenty year

Re: sh(1) and NUL

2024-10-11 Thread Thomas Klausner
On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 10:49:20PM +0700, Robert Elz wrote: > Date:Wed, 25 Sep 2024 16:44:12 +0200 > From:Thomas Klausner > Message-ID: > > | Since we're talking about sh(1) so much - OpenBSD just changed their > | ksh to abort on reading NUL in shell scripts. >

Re: ls.1: incorrect -O flag description

2024-10-11 Thread Valery Ushakov
Hi, Thor. Do you remember what was the original intention behind ls -O? On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 13:16:32 +0200, tlaro...@kergis.com wrote: > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 05:35:11AM +0300, Valery Ushakov wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 21:37:15 +0200, tlaro...@kergis.com wrote: > > > > > The -O (n