Re: avoid spurious failures from MacOS readdir bug

[Paul Eggert]

Eric Blake <address@hidden> writes:

> Is 'ls -1' really non-portable, or is the manual missing '1' from its list of 
> portable options?  Is there any known ls where 'ls -1 | blah' and 'ls | blah' 
> behave differently?

I don't know of any, except where users (mistakenly) define their own
"ls".  I'd omit the "-1".

> Also, does this attempt to shave processes in the autoconf testsuite look 
> valid?  [Lest you get a mistaken idea about my abilities, my sed-foo isn't 
> that 
> strong: I had to copy liberally from the 'info sed' manual.]

Is it really that important to shave a process here?  Wow.  Personally
I'd stick with "sort -u".