[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Libcdio-devel] head -n 196 vs head -196 ?
From: |
Max Vozeler |
Subject: |
Re: [Libcdio-devel] head -n 196 vs head -196 ? |
Date: |
Fri, 13 May 2005 14:12:35 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.9i |
Hi Rocky,
On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 07:38:51AM -0400, R. Bernstein wrote:
> I'll try to check things out on my own as well, but does anyone have
> an comments on using:
>
> "head -n 196 config.h" versus "head -196 config.h"?
SUSv3 mentions the -n syntax, I'd guess it's a good choice for
portability.
> See: http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=13073
>
> What's odd is that I use coreutils-5.2.1 same as the person in the bug
> report and don't recall such a message. But also I'm interested in
> other non-GNU head's and whether they support either of the option
> forms above.
Some distributions (eg. Debian) build coreutils with a different and
lower value for _POSIX2_VERSION that makes the warning go away. That
might explain the difference you are seeing.
cheers,
Max
BTW,
sorry that I haven't replied to your message on cdtool-devel yet,
I've been swamped with other work. Will get to it soon, promised :)