Ralf Corsepius wrote:
: [1] http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/gnustandards/gnustandards/standards.texi
:
Thanks, Ralf, for enlightening me. I wrote "new coding standards",
above, in response to Stepan Kasal's remark that "GNU Coding Standards
now declare ...". I suppose the latter is literally true even if the
Standard was defined in 1992.
Of course, with this new knowledge, I will feel as free as a bird to
boldly ignore the Standard (in this respect) seeing how several other
prominent linux executables (busybox, lvm, dump/restore, halt, to name
a few) have been blithely ignoring it for more than a decade. ½:-)
Well, of cause it's everybody's freedom to ignore the "insights" others
have accumulated over many years. But also consider, there are good
reasons why these recommendations exist and why some people consider
programs changing their behavior upon program name to be mal-designed.
Why is it any more/less significant as a source of error than anything
else on the command line, and is it really worth giving up shared-text
pages when other copies are likely to be executing (like cp/ln/mv)?
And doesn't /bin/sh have some differences with /bin/bash even though
they are the same - and isn't that a GNU-ism?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
