In regard to: Re: RH9 breaks bash ?, Scott S. Ross said (at 5:52pm on Dec...: >I looked into this and it seems that echo has this problem a lot. Some >versions use escape characters, others do not. Posix.2 chimes in further >restricts what echo can do (by default). > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/utilities/echo.html >Posix defines the escape character handling as implementation defined. >But, in the same paragraph, defines them as supported on XSI-conformant >systems (thus the xpg option flag in bash). POSIX and XPG are related, but they're not the same thing. It's been a while since I've looked at the relevant specs, but you probably want to be looking in the "XSH" section of the XPG (X/Open Portability Guide) specifications. I believe XSH 5.0 (or perhaps XCU, if there is one -- this is all from memory) is what corresponds to the UNIX98 specification. That would likely be the most relevant spec for what the shell and/or the external echo command should do regarding escape sequences. >In the informative section of the spec, they suggest using printf(1) >instead of echo for portable behavior. Do relics like SunOS 4.1.3 have a printf binary? I don't believe it was built in to the /bin/sh or /5bin/sh. Every UNIX I've ever seen has an `echo' (either builtin or external to the shell), but I don't believe they all have `printf'. Not a concern if you only need to deal with modern systems. Tim -- Tim Mooney mooney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Information Technology Services (701) 231-1076 (Voice) Room 242-J6, IACC Building (701) 231-8541 (Fax) North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164 _______________________________________________ Rpm-list mailing list Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list
