From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IaSH8-0001un-Ii for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:29:43 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l8Q8JxXV022226; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:19:59 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l8Q8FZpX017387 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:15:36 GMT Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 113DF650C5 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:15:35 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.55 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.190, BAYES_20=-0.74] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dXiCDcUmhEaq for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:15:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5118365033 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:15:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IaS37-0006zQ-N1 for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:15:13 +0000 Received: from zy-rieter.cyberlink.ch ([212.55.215.153]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:15:13 +0000 Received: from listen by zy-rieter.cyberlink.ch with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2007 08:15:13 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Alexander Skwar Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: star Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:14:58 +0200 Organization: n/a Message-ID: <2021306.3IsArpDem0@kn.gn.rtr.message-center.info> References: <46F53CC6.30503@addcom.de> <200709221923.59083.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> <46F55B7F.5010200@addcom.de> <200709222200.33355.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> <1344772.8mdDTN8kXs@kn.gn.rtr.message-center.info> <2831404.7zBJE4lrJ8@kn.gn.rtr.message-center.info> <46F90C23.20204@gmail.com> <2734612.RV0q0BIfvm@kn.gn.rtr.message-center.info> <20070925152701.45f054f2@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> <1210223.JpbI81628Y@kn.gn.rtr.message-center.info> <20070926081837.3d5c2310@krikkit.digimed.co.uk> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: zy-rieter.cyberlink.ch User-Agent: KNode/0.10.5 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: 910b7685-bd3b-435a-be68-362e640c7eaa X-Archives-Hash: b6bb69733b6099fb879b9fe1bb735600 Neil Bothwick wrote: > Hello Alexander Skwar, > >> Yes, it's very bad that Gentoo scripts don't limit themselves to >> POSIX. Another windmill to fight against. > > Artificially limiting yourself to the lowest common denominator when > better options are available is bad, and discourages evolution. Well, depends. Making use of non standard options when standard compliant options are avialable, is no-good evolution. It very much tastes of the way Microsoft handles standards. Eg. have a look at how MS treated Java or HTML (granted, Netscape wasn't much better either). Back to tar: Why use "tar -j" in scripts, when "bzip2 | tar" does the same thing? I very much disagree that "tar -j" is the "better" option here; in fact, I'd say that "bzip2 | tar" is the better option, as it works on a lot more systems than "tar -j" does. Heck, "tar -j" even does not work on all GNU tar implementations, as very old GNU tars don't have bzip2 support at all and -j wasn't always used for bzip2. > POSIX > specifies the minimum set of options and features, not the maximum. As > long as the standards aren't broken, nothing is wrong, and adding new, > useful and compatible features is one way that standards get improved. No, it's not. To improve a standard, you make sure that the standard gets amended and then you implement something. Not the other way around. Alexander Skwar -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list