Subject: Re: README: nawk vs. gawk
From: Ignatios Souvatzis <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 02/03/2001 12:11:03
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 04:54:18PM -0500, Jim Wise wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Todd Vierling wrote:
> >The only other alternative is to link /usr/bin/awk to /usr/bin/nawk ONLY IF
> >there is no /usr/bin/awk already installed on the machine (for upgrades, of
> >course). This would leave gawk as /usr/bin/awk on upgraded machines, but
> >install nawk on freshly installed machines.
> Wow, that scares the pants off me. `I have this awk script that works
> on box A but not on box B. Both are running 1.7.1-release. WTF?'.
I don't tend to send AOL messages, but this time: I agree.
I think it is ok to make sure nawk correctly complains about gawkisms, and
warn people to switch the scripts to gawk if they depend on them.
It is people's own business if they install perl-5.6 as /usr/bin/awk.
But we should not do it. If we install nawk as /usr/bin/awk, fine. If we
don't, fine. But we should not do both.