Re: Incompatible seq behaviour

[Michiel Buddingh' <michiel%michielbuddingh.net@localhost>]

Hubert Feyrer <hubert%feyrer.de@localhost> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Michiel Buddingh' wrote:
> > While logical in its own right, NetBSD seq does not behave like any
> > other seq out there, and in its current form is probably not preferable
> > to either including GNU coreutils seq, or having no seq at all.
>
> What is your suggestion to handle the case you describe?

Either:

* Work on Bug-for-Bug compatibility with GNU seq (as the original
  author puts it).  If this is deemed the best solution, I'm willing to
  invest some time in this.  Alternatively, match the behaviour of
  Plan9 seq, but I'm not sure this is preferable.
* Remove seq from the base system, make it available as a
  package.  FreeBSD doesn't include a seq by default, I'm not sure about
  Solaris or OS X.
* import seq from GNU coreutils

Of course, there may be NetBSD-specific scripts that depend on the 
established behaviour.

It's obvious that the original author was aware of the issues and tried
as best as he could to impose a bit of logic on an otherwise fairly
idiosyncratic and non-standard utility, but ultimately I don't think
having a third, incompatible variant is all that useful.

mvg,
Michiel