bug#17878: Possible bug in GNU ls with -R

[fuz]

Please keep me updated on this issue and perhaps link the Austin Group
defect in this bug report.

On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 11:51:31AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/30/2014 10:22 AM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > Eric Blake wrote:
> >> All other ls implementations behave the same.
> > 
> > Unfortunately that's not the case, as AIX 7.1 behaves the way the
> > original requestor asked for, as does 7th Edition Unix.  Furthermore,
> > the POSIX spec's EXAMPLES section
> > <http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/ls.html#tag_20_73_17>
> > (admittedly informative) agrees with AIX 7.1 and 7th Edition Unix.  My
> > guess is that POSIX intended to specify the traditional behavior.
> > However, so many implementations have gotten it wrong that one could
> > easily argue the wording is unclear, and that the POSIX wording should
> > be fixed to make it clear that both the traditional and the common
> > behavior are allowed.  Another possibility is that we could change GNU
> > ls to behave like traditional ls.
> 
> Then I'll go ahead and raise a defect report with the Austin Group, and
> report back here once I get more of a feel for what will happen in POSIX.
> 
> -- 
> Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
> Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
> 



-- 
()  ascii ribbon campaign - for an 8-bit clean world 
/\  - against html email  - against proprietary attachments