[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: portability of 'printf' command
From: |
Karl Berry |
Subject: |
Re: portability of 'printf' command |
Date: |
Wed, 7 Apr 2010 23:12:47 GMT |
Hi Harlan,
>From my POV, as long as one can bootstrap to the point where there is a
sufficient base of utilities, all is well.
I agree.
"we can't get there from here".
As has been said: install (say) coreutils-8.4, which does not require
printf. This gives you printf. Then proceed.
I still believe this is an epsilon-probability event. Like most people
here I've updated lots of machines running lots of versions over lots of
years, production and otherwise. I still cannot fathom a case where
*new* source releases requiring a printf command would be a serious
problem.
k
- Re: portability of 'printf' command, (continued)
- Re: portability of 'printf' command, Bob Friesenhahn, 2010/04/05
- Re: portability of 'printf' command, Dr. David Kirkby, 2010/04/05
- Re: portability of 'printf' command, Eric Blake, 2010/04/06
- Re: portability of 'printf' command, Dr. David Kirkby, 2010/04/07
- Re: portability of 'printf' command, Karl Berry, 2010/04/07
- Re: portability of 'printf' command, Harlan Stenn, 2010/04/07
- Re: portability of 'printf' command,
Karl Berry <=
- Re: portability of 'printf' command, Karl Berry, 2010/04/12
- Re: portability of 'printf' command, Paul Eggert, 2010/04/07
- Re: portability of 'printf' command, Jim Meyering, 2010/04/07
Re: portability of 'printf' command, Bob Friesenhahn, 2010/04/07