Re: Question on grep 2.3-5 for potato

1999-09-17 Thread Andreas Tille
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Indeed. The GNU coding style dictates this (a program should not rely > on argv[0] to decide its behaviour). Are there any security risks or other reasons. I was advised several times in the past to do so also over the list. The simplest example is

Re: Question on grep 2.3-5 for potato

1999-09-16 Thread Wichert Akkerman
Previously Steve Greenland wrote: > I just looked into this -- they are all the same size, but a diff shows > that they are different. A check into the changelog.Debian shows that > they no longer check argv[0], and need to be seperate programs. Indeed. The GNU coding style dictates this (a progra

Re: Question on grep 2.3-5 for potato

1999-09-16 Thread Zygo Blaxell
On Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:02:48 -0400, Chris Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I was wondering if grep/fgrep/egrep are meant to be seperate programs >or, hard links to one binary? If I take a long listing of the *ep files >in /bin, they are all 47616 bytes, but they all only have one file >link. Do

Re: Question on grep 2.3-5 for potato

1999-09-16 Thread Steve Greenland
On 16-Sep-99, 10:02 (CDT), Chris Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I was wondering if grep/fgrep/egrep are meant to be seperate programs > or, hard links to one binary? If I take a long listing of the *ep files > in /bin, they are all 47616 bytes, but they all only have one file > l

Question on grep 2.3-5 for potato

1999-09-16 Thread Chris Gorman
Hello, I was wondering if grep/fgrep/egrep are meant to be seperate programs or, hard links to one binary? If I take a long listing of the *ep files in /bin, they are all 47616 bytes, but they all only have one file link. Do you know if they are supposed to be one binary, and the functionality o