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 listed in the permitted > tools. > > About that, echo -n was and never will be portable, have to go through > the tests of -n vs. \c, etc. I doubt that's news to anyone here :). > > I seem to recall that we've already given up on explicitly testing other > things lacking in SunOS 4, though the specifics elude me. Maybe you're remembering free(NULL) ? It would segfault on SunOS 4, but POSIX now requires it be a no-op. > 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. > > So I'm not seeing a strong argument against this. Barring objections, > I'll send it on to rms ... except I'll be offline until next Tuesday, so > don't expect anything before next week. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
