Follow-up Comment #5, bug #64100 (project findutils):
My first thought on this request was rather how are other well-known tools
which are specified by POSIX doing this?
Hence I compared find's -printf percent formats to that for stat(1) from the
GNU coreutils.
Unluckily, there's maybe only 30-40%
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #64100 (project findutils):
[comment #2 comment #2:]
> It might also be useful to allow the user to specify how the program should
respond if a format specifier is
>
> (1) unknown to the implementation
> (2) known to the implementation but not supported on the platform
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #64100 (project findutils):
[comment #1 comment #1:]
> This is quite a sizeable chunk of the available namespace.
Yes, but currently unclaimed and therefore safe to claim (according to the
existing documentation).
> I suggest instead we agree a compatible way to exten
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #64100 (project findutils):
It might also be useful to allow the user to specify how the program should
respond if a format specifier is
(1) unknown to the implementation
(2) known to the implementation but not supported on the platform
(3) supported on the platform but
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #64100 (project findutils):
This is quite a sizeable chunk of the available namespace.
I suggest instead we agree a compatible way to extend things while staying
mostly out of each other's way. Here's a strawman:
%{ns/ns/path:keyword:flags}
Here "flags" is the usua
