Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: star

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Mittwoch, 26. September 2007, Alexander Skwar wrote:
> Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> 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?


-- 
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list