bug#7362: dd strangeness

[Pádraig Brady]

On 25/02/11 17:29, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 02/25/2011 04:19 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> 
>> Attached is a proposed solution to this.
> 
> My kneejerk reaction is that it tries to do too much inferring,
> and ends up being more complicated than giving the user more control.
> 
> If we're going to change the default to be not compatible with POSIX,
> we need to give the user a way to get the POSIX behavior, something
> that's less subtle than POSIXLY_CORRECT.  I suggest that we add
> a new option that is the inverse of "fullblock".  We can call it
> "partblock", say.
> 
> Then, we can say that the default is "fullblock" normally, but it is
> "partblock" if POSIXLY_CORRECT and if bs= is given and if no conversions
> other than sync, noerror, and notrunk are given.
> 
> Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud to some extent, and further
> comments are welcome.

Hmm, it's better to be explicit but I think defaulting to "fullblock"
is too risky. As an interim step at least, how about just warning
as per the attached.

cheers,
Pádraig.

dd-fullblock.diff
Description: Text Data