mark obsolete usage of fold
rob at landley.net
Mon Dec 12 04:30:24 UTC 2005
On Sunday 11 December 2005 16:04, John Kelly wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:26:10 +0100 (CET), Peter S Mazinger
> >You understood/reacted wrong imho. uClibc does not want to be GNU
> >compliant. it tries only to be SuSv3 compliant. There are no GNU
> >extensions expected to be added (ask Erik, he may decide otherwise), those
> >being already there are probably because w/o them you can't really use
> >uClibc in real world.
> If your "real world" includes GNU coreutils tests, uclibc is not
If the gnu tests are testing gnu extensions, who cares about that? Show me a
real world application that breaks.
> >Come up w/ a patch that is option guarded (CONFIG_GNU_COMPAT?)
> Printing the program name in the error.c message is a trivial change,
> hardly an "extension." But it makes a big difference if you want to
> run coreutils tests.
I, personally, don't.
Steve Ballmer: Innovation! Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
More information about the busybox