On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:50:54 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
>
> > I fully agree with this. If it can be cleanly added to the current test(1)
> > (which it can), we should have it, even if it were JUST for the sake of
> > portability.
>
> Ah, bu
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:50:54 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> I fully agree with this. If it can be cleanly added to the current test(1)
> (which it can), we should have it, even if it were JUST for the sake of
> portability.
Ah, but I'm not proposing that we add new functionality to the exis
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:36:24 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>
> > It would be nice, but there are portability issues.
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> I'm only replying to your mail because you're the last person to mention
> portability as a case againsdt NetBSD'
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:50:54 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
>
> > I fully agree with this. If it can be cleanly added to the current test(1)
> > (which it can), we should have it, even if it were JUST for the sake of
> > portability.
>
> Ah, b
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 12:50:54 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> I fully agree with this. If it can be cleanly added to the current test(1)
> (which it can), we should have it, even if it were JUST for the sake of
> portability.
Ah, but I'm not proposing that we add new functionality to the exi
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:36:24 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>
> > It would be nice, but there are portability issues.
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> I'm only replying to your mail because you're the last person to mention
> portability as a case againsdt NetBSD
Hi folks,
The pdksh-derived test(1) used by NetBSD and OpenBSD has made it through
a ``make world'' and package run on my box. It passes the regression
tests supplied with our own test(1) in exactly the same way as our own
test(1) does, and shows no noticeable performance difference.
I've mentio
Hi folks,
The pdksh-derived test(1) used by NetBSD and OpenBSD has made it through
a ``make world'' and package run on my box. It passes the regression
tests supplied with our own test(1) in exactly the same way as our own
test(1) does, and shows no noticeable performance difference.
I've menti
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:36:24 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> It would be nice, but there are portability issues.
Hi Peter,
I'm only replying to your mail because you're the last person to mention
portability as a case againsdt NetBSD's test(1).
Just how many other platforms need to support an _e
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:41:31 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> > NetBSD's test(1) utility has this (-nt and -ot). We should probably
> > merge in their changes.
>
> Hmm... this is in pdksh too...
Don't go there. :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "un
On Fri, 13 Aug 1999 15:36:24 +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> It would be nice, but there are portability issues.
Hi Peter,
I'm only replying to your mail because you're the last person to mention
portability as a case againsdt NetBSD's test(1).
Just how many other platforms need to support an _
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 11:41:31 -0400, "Brian F. Feldman" wrote:
> > NetBSD's test(1) utility has this (-nt and -ot). We should probably
> > merge in their changes.
>
> Hmm... this is in pdksh too...
Don't go there. :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsub
>I was writing a script yesterday, and I wanted to have a test to compare
>the modification time of two files.
I've written programs to do this before as well. A more portable
approach is
find file1 -newer file2 ...
>thinking - wouldn't it be a good idea to add some new tests to test(1),
>I was writing a script yesterday, and I wanted to have a test to compare
>the modification time of two files.
I've written programs to do this before as well. A more portable
approach is
find file1 -newer file2 ...
>thinking - wouldn't it be a good idea to add some new tests to test(1)
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> On 12 Aug 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> > Graham Wheeler writes:
> > > I was writing a script yesterday, and I wanted to have a test to compare
> > > the modification time of two files. test(1) doesn't have the ability to
> > > do this. In th
On 12 Aug 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Graham Wheeler writes:
> > I was writing a script yesterday, and I wanted to have a test to compare
> > the modification time of two files. test(1) doesn't have the ability to
> > do this. In the end I worked around this by using make(1), but it set me
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Brian F. Feldman wrote:
> On 12 Aug 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>
> > Graham Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > I was writing a script yesterday, and I wanted to have a test to compare
> > > the modification time of two files. test(1) doesn't have the ability to
On 12 Aug 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> Graham Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I was writing a script yesterday, and I wanted to have a test to compare
> > the modification time of two files. test(1) doesn't have the ability to
> > do this. In the end I worked around this by using ma
> >> thinking - wouldn't it be a good idea to add some new tests to test(1),
> >> to compare files based on criteria like size or modification date?
So far it has been policy for FreeBSD not to add options to
commandline utilities that are replaceable by simple shell script
constructs. Especially
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:22:39 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> Their code isn't useful in this case, since they've merged in a
> pdksh-derived version of test. How about we do the same? :-)
By the way, OpenBSD have _also_ incorporated NetBSD's test. *evil.grin*
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: sen
> >> thinking - wouldn't it be a good idea to add some new tests to test(1),
> >> to compare files based on criteria like size or modification date?
So far it has been policy for FreeBSD not to add options to
commandline utilities that are replaceable by simple shell script
constructs. Especially
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:15:52 +0200, Graham Wheeler wrote:
> Portability is a Good Thing, but I write a lot of one-off scripts
> in which portability isn't an issue.
Not to mention that following NetBSD's lead on issues relating to
portability probably is seldom a bad idea. :-)
Give PR 13091 a
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:26:41 GMT, Bob Bishop wrote:
> Further, isn't test a builtin for most (all?) shells? Sounds like a can of
> worms to me...
If your only motivation for saying it's a can of worms is that test is
usually a builtin, don't sweat it. Lots of scripts insist on using
/bin/test .
Hi,
At 4:01 am -0700 12/8/99, Aaron Smith wrote:
>this seems undesirable to me, since using it immediately makes your shell
>scripts nonportable. i liked the ls -t suggestion though.
Further, isn't test a builtin for most (all?) shells? Sounds like a can of
worms to me...
>
>On Thu, Aug 12, 1999
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:22:39 +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> Their code isn't useful in this case, since they've merged in a
> pdksh-derived version of test. How about we do the same? :-)
By the way, OpenBSD have _also_ incorporated NetBSD's test. *evil.grin*
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: se
Aaron Smith wrote:
>
> this seems undesirable to me, since using it immediately makes your shell
> scripts nonportable. i liked the ls -t suggestion though.
Portability is a Good Thing, but I write a lot of one-off scripts
in which portability isn't an issue. Also, just because one uses
standard
this seems undesirable to me, since using it immediately makes your shell
scripts nonportable. i liked the ls -t suggestion though.
--
Aaron Smith
aa...@mutex.org
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 11:18:50AM +0200, Graham Wheeler wrote:
> thinking - wouldn't it be a good idea to add some new tests to test(
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 13:15:52 +0200, Graham Wheeler wrote:
> Portability is a Good Thing, but I write a lot of one-off scripts
> in which portability isn't an issue.
Not to mention that following NetBSD's lead on issues relating to
portability probably is seldom a bad idea. :-)
Give PR 13091 a
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999 12:26:41 GMT, Bob Bishop wrote:
> Further, isn't test a builtin for most (all?) shells? Sounds like a can of
> worms to me...
If your only motivation for saying it's a can of worms is that test is
usually a builtin, don't sweat it. Lots of scripts insist on using
/bin/test
Hi,
At 4:01 am -0700 12/8/99, Aaron Smith wrote:
>this seems undesirable to me, since using it immediately makes your shell
>scripts nonportable. i liked the ls -t suggestion though.
Further, isn't test a builtin for most (all?) shells? Sounds like a can of
worms to me...
>
>On Thu, Aug 12, 199
On 12 Aug 1999 11:42:42 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> NetBSD's test(1) utility has this (-nt and -ot). We should probably
> merge in their changes.
Their code isn't useful in this case, since they've merged in a
pdksh-derived version of test. How about we do the same? :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
Aaron Smith wrote:
>
> this seems undesirable to me, since using it immediately makes your shell
> scripts nonportable. i liked the ls -t suggestion though.
Portability is a Good Thing, but I write a lot of one-off scripts
in which portability isn't an issue. Also, just because one uses
standard
this seems undesirable to me, since using it immediately makes your shell
scripts nonportable. i liked the ls -t suggestion though.
--
Aaron Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999 at 11:18:50AM +0200, Graham Wheeler wrote:
> thinking - wouldn't it be a good idea to add some new tests to te
Graham Wheeler writes:
> I was writing a script yesterday, and I wanted to have a test to compare
> the modification time of two files. test(1) doesn't have the ability to
> do this. In the end I worked around this by using make(1), but it set me
> thinking - wouldn't it be a good idea to add some
On 12 Aug 1999 11:42:42 +0200, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
> NetBSD's test(1) utility has this (-nt and -ot). We should probably
> merge in their changes.
Their code isn't useful in this case, since they've merged in a
pdksh-derived version of test. How about we do the same? :-)
Ciao,
Sheldon.
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Graham Wheeler wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I was writing a script yesterday, and I wanted to have a test to compare
> the modification time of two files. test(1) doesn't have the ability to
> do this. In the end I worked around this by using make(1), but it set me
> thinking - woul
Hi all
I was writing a script yesterday, and I wanted to have a test to compare
the modification time of two files. test(1) doesn't have the ability to
do this. In the end I worked around this by using make(1), but it set me
thinking - wouldn't it be a good idea to add some new tests to test(1),
t
Graham Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was writing a script yesterday, and I wanted to have a test to compare
> the modification time of two files. test(1) doesn't have the ability to
> do this. In the end I worked around this by using make(1), but it set me
> thinking - wouldn't it be a g
On Thu, 12 Aug 1999, Graham Wheeler wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I was writing a script yesterday, and I wanted to have a test to compare
> the modification time of two files. test(1) doesn't have the ability to
> do this. In the end I worked around this by using make(1), but it set me
> thinking - wou
Hi all
I was writing a script yesterday, and I wanted to have a test to compare
the modification time of two files. test(1) doesn't have the ability to
do this. In the end I worked around this by using make(1), but it set me
thinking - wouldn't it be a good idea to add some new tests to test(1),
40 matches
Mail list logo
