Re: [PATCH] latest ash has broken 'echo' command
On Oct 22, 12:34am in "Re: [PATCH] latest a", Daniel Quinlan wrote:
> Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Cc'ed to the LSB spec list. Briefly, the Debian ash package recently
> > changed it's implementation of echo to not support -e and -n behaviour
> > in order to match the Single Unix Specification description of echo.
> > (See
> This seems like a dumb idea based on a dumb part of the SUS. Perhaps it
> is a good idea to encourage use of printf, but breaking echo is not the
> right way to get there.
It was POSIX.2 that standardized on there being no switches to
the echo utility. The SUS aligns with POSIX.2 for echo and then
extends it include various escape sequences (\a, \b, \c, etc).
Apparently -n was used in different ways by System V and BSD
and so the decision at the time by POSIX.2 was to simplify the utility
and require no options and recommend use of printf.
> > If `echo -n' isn't guaranteed by the LSB, we probably should get rid of
> > from maintainer scripts. :-/
> It *may* be a good idea to switch to printf in the long run, but I would
> have been much happier if SUS didn't break echo in the first place.
Folks can always lobby for a change in the revision to POSIX and
the Single UNIX Specification (see http://www.opengroup.org/austin).