On 2008-02-27 10:31, David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:33:41PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>>On 2008-02-23 16:48, "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> This knee-jerk reaction against gnu find functionality baffles me.
>>> The changes are trivial and
David O'Brien wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:33:41PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2008-02-23 16:48, "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This knee-jerk reaction against gnu find functionality baffles me.
The changes are trivial and make FreeBSD more compatible. It is such
an ob
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:33:41PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> On 2008-02-23 16:48, "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This knee-jerk reaction against gnu find functionality baffles me.
> > The changes are trivial and make FreeBSD more compatible. It is such
> > an obvious no-br
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:07:44AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: > Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > You fail to understand the complex interplay of po
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:43:39PM -0700 M. Warner Losh mentioned:
> :
> : Please, don't commit C++ comments, that violates style(9). Also, gnu should
> be
> : spelled as GNU.
>
> Understood. Not that I'm going to change it, but understood.
Why not? You took a good peace of code, and now it lo
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 07:27:30AM +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
>What I wasn't thrilled about, and hoped to trigger a discussion of, was the
>apparent suggestion that FreeBSD must be Linux-compatible at all costs
>because weight of numbers makes Linux and GNU a de-facto standard.
Whilst I agre
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 01:06, Alex Zbyslaw wrote:
> Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
> >On 2008-02-23 16:48, "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>This knee-jerk reaction against gnu find functionality baffles me.
> >>The changes are trivial and make FreeBSD more compatible. It is such
> >>
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2008-02-23 16:48, "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This knee-jerk reaction against gnu find functionality baffles me.
The changes are trivial and make FreeBSD more compatible. It is such
an obvious no-brainer that I frankly didn't expect anybody to bat
On 2008-02-23 16:48, "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Jonathan McKeown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : Yes, where it makes sense. I'm not at all convinced that this change makes
> as
> : much sense as you obviously think it does - especia
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 12:07:44AM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You fail to understand the complex interplay of politics here. These
> people do not want to see beyond it. They want to shut you down
> because
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:43:39PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : > { "-empty", c_empty,f_empty,0 },
> : > { "-exec", c_exec, f_exec, 0 },
> : > { "-execdir", c_exec, f_exec, F_EXECDIR },
> : > - { "-false", c_simple, f_no
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:28:44 -0800 Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > It's been in my tradition for Unix developement since 1986 when I
: > first joined comp.unix
:
: It has happened. But from my pers
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:28:44 -0800 Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's been in my tradition for Unix developement since 1986 when I
> first joined comp.unix
It has happened. But from my perspective, what happened going from v6
to v7 tends to be the rule, and your tradition is the ex
Mike Meyer wrote:
What's ridiculous? That the only limit is the developers definition of
"trivial"? Care to provide another one? That OS X turned /bin/sh into
bash? I'd agree that that's ridiculous, except it's a fact. That they
did it to make OS X more compatible with Linux? Would you like me
Instead of all the debate about GNU compatibility and the fact that the
patch adds a feature not readily available, why not improve FreeBSD's
find without caring about GNU's find? I have not seen a way to capture
output from a command and compare it to another command. Imagine
something conce
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Stanislav Sedov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Should be, probably, spelled as GNU, it's an abbrev.
Actually, you are right, but for the wrong reason. GNU is an acronym,
so should be all caps.
: > -/* c_simple covers c_prune, c_openparen, c_closeparen,
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 12:03:08AM -0700 M. Warner Losh mentioned:
>
> Comments?
>
> Warner
>
> Index: find.1
> ===
> RCS file: /cache/ncvs/src/usr.bin/find/find.1,v
> retrieving revision 1.82
> diff -u -r1.82 find.1
> --- find.1
On Sunday 24 February 2008 01:48, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> The change absolutely makes sense, and so far none of the arguments
> against it are really worth the time to respond to. I'm using
> packages not in the ports system. Frankly, the more gratuitous
> differences with the gnu tools we have,
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Warner Losh wrote:
<>
agree.
Or course, we may need to adopt features from bash into our /bin/sh as
time marches forward.
===
i'll disagree on this one. linux (that i've seen) uses a symlink from sh
to bash. if you execute /bin/sh, it's running bash. if you
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Mike Meyer wrote:
The problem with this argument is that there are no limits on it, other
than the developers definition of "trivial". OS X has already carried
this argument to the point that they've replaced /bin/sh with bash.
===
i've seen that on li
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 04:50:02PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: >In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: >Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: >: At the same, time, the find(1) man page needs to cle
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 04:50:02PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: At the same, time, the find(1) man page needs to clearly distinguish
>: between the parts of find that are POSIX-complaint, the parts that are
>:
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:49:13 -0600 Brooks Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 01:19:37PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
> > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:00:47 -0700 (MST) "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > While I understand that it's easier to fix the BSD find, have yo
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 16:28:36 -0700 (MST) "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : > In short, I'm continuig the long tradition that we've done as FreeBSD
> : > and that BSD and other Unix vendors did bef
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: At the same, time, the find(1) man page needs to clearly distinguish
: between the parts of find that are POSIX-complaint, the parts that are
: GNU extensions and the parts that are [Free]BSD extensions. This is
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Jonathan McKeown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: What functionality does
:
: find path -lname name
:
: add that isn't already available from
:
: find path -name name -type l
:
: and what other combinations should be special-cased like this?
Wha
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: > In short, I'm continuig the long tradition that we've done as FreeBSD
: > and that BSD and other Unix vendors did before us: compatibility with
: > other implementations.
:
: I suspect your definition of "long t
Jonathan McKeown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What functionality does
>
> find path -lname name
>
> add that isn't already available from
>
> find path -name name -type l
those are two entirely different things; -lname applies to the target of
the symlink, not the symlink itself.
DES
--
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How about a question: why are you turning the FreeBSD find into the
> GNU find? The changes in the first patch looked like they added real
> functionality that wasn't available in other tools. These seem to be
> gratuitous changes to make things compatible w
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:53:55PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:05:46 -0700 (MST) Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It adds functionality. That doesn't make it gratuitous. One might
>> just as well call 'POSIX' compatibility gratuitous. Like it or not,
>> the GNU util
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 01:19:37PM -0500, Mike Meyer wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:00:47 -0700 (MST) "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > : On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:03:08 -0700 (MST) "M. Warn
[Sorry to break threading - I deleted the thread before deciding to respond. I
can see both sides of this discussion, but I did want to add some hopefully
thought-provoking comments late on a Saturday night].
[M Warner Losh]
> From: Mike Meyer
> Subject: Re: find -lname and -ilname imple
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:05:46 -0700 (MST) Warner Losh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:00:47 -0700 (MST) "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTEC
From: Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 13:19:37 -0500
> On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:00:47 -0700 (MST) "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:00:47 -0700 (MST) "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:03:08 -0700 (MST) "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :
> : > Sorry to be lame and f
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:03:08 -0700 (MST) "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
:
: > Sorry to be lame and follow up to my original email, but Ruslan was
: > way too quick to give me feedback :-)
: >
: > I
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:03:08 -0700 (MST) "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Sorry to be lame and follow up to my original email, but Ruslan was
> way too quick to give me feedback :-)
>
> I also did a few more of the really easy ones, and added a list of
> ones that we haven't impleme
Sorry to be lame and follow up to my original email, but Ruslan was
way too quick to give me feedback :-)
I also did a few more of the really easy ones, and added a list of
ones that we haven't implemented yet.
Comments?
Warner
Index: extern.h
===
Please find enclosed a patch that implements -lname and -ilname in
FreeBSD's find. There's some shell scripts that insist on these gnu
findtools features.
Comments?
Warner
Index: find.1
===
RCS file: /cache/ncvs/src/usr.bin/find/fi
39 matches
Mail list logo
