Kyle Evans wrote:
> Ah, I see what you mean. I've no idea on the history here, but I
> believe the idea is that if I invoke one of these other links (zgrep,
> egrep, ...) I'm expecting it to be actually be grep(1) based purely on
> the name, and I don't consider bsdgrep(1) to be installed for any
On 03/22/17 00:07, Kyle Evans wrote:
> [...]
> For grep(1) to be GNU grep while xzgrep to secretly be a link to BSD
> grep would be quite surprising to me as a user/admin, especially since
> there are very real output and argument differences between the two.
> [...]
It would not surprise me. Know
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 8:32 AM, George Mitchell wrote:
> It would not surprise me. Knowing, to begin with, that GNU grep does
> not support uncompressing its input, I would *never* expect bzgrep
> (etc.) to link to GNU grep.-- George
This gets kind of sticky, tho
On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:41 AM, Jamie Landeg-Jones
wrote:
> Kyle Evans wrote:
>
> > Ah, I see what you mean. I've no idea on the history here, but I
> > believe the idea is that if I invoke one of these other links (zgrep,
> > egrep, ...) I'm expecting it to be actually be grep(1) based purely
Freddie Cash wrote:
> Huh, never even noticed (not that I use many of the grep variants). But,
> on a 10.3 install (from binaries, not source), half the variants are
> hard-links to bsdgrep, while the other half are hard-links to grep:
Yep, that's how it was for me.
> Does this mean an upgra
root@lilith:/usr/src # make buildworld
make[1]: "/usr/src/Makefile.inc1" line 144: SYSTEM_COMPILER: Determined
that CC=cc matches the source tree. Not bootstrapping a cross-compiler.
--
>>> World build started on Thu Mar 23 01:36:18 EDT 2
