On 11/18/2009 02:47 AM, Uwe Düffert wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> The . after find is also redundant.
>>
> Well, depending on the version of find... The one from (current) MacOS X
> for example requires the '.' (there is no --version, but 'man' claims it
> to be the BSD version and a superset of what IEEE 1003.1-2001 ("POSIX.1")
> defines). Therefore I'm voting for leaving that 'redundancy'.
>
> Uwe
>
I agree, just because you can, doesn't make it a good idea to abandon
well recognized syntax, for something that is not portable. For
instance, we still use -{z,j}xf for tarballs when neither the -, nor the
{z,j} are required on any fairly recent tar (I'm pretty sure that our
host requirements, by rough estimation, exclude any distributions that
shipped tar-1.13).
-- DJ Lucas
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content, and is believed to be clean.
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
