Re: tail claims "tail +n" is deprecated

[Raphael Manfredi]

Quoting Paul Eggert:
: Raphael Manfredi <address@hidden> writes:
: 
: > The problem is that "portable scripts" (e.g. Configure-type scripts)
: > were written years ago
: 
: Which Configure-type script are you thinking of, exactly?  I can send
: in a bug report to its maintainer.

None in particular.  It's just the kind of script that could be
broken when a UNIX V7 command has its syntax obsoleted.

I've checked metaconfig and, fortunately, none of its units makes
use of "tail +n".  I have no idea about autoxxx-generated scripts
though since I don't une them.

I had several personal scripts making use of this syntax though, and
I had to update them to the new syntax.  Scripts dating from 1990 and
that had never failed me up to now...

Now although I'm immune to this "tail +n" bug, I still don't think
obsoleting such a widely known syntax is good.

Breaking backward compatibility is so bad -- I've been bitten many
times by autoconf-generated scripts that many GNU packages use
and insist on remaking locally (why?) and that could not work because
my local autoconf was newer than the version used by the package
author.

Anyway, I won't obviously change your mind nor the one of the POSIX
folks.  So be it.

Raphael