Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented

[Giorgos Keramidas <keramida_(_at_)_ceid_(_dot_)_upatras_(_dot_)_gr>]

On 2008-02-23 16:48, "M. Warner Losh" <imp_(_at_)_bsdimp_(_dot_)_com> wrote:
> In message: <200802232322_(_dot_)_45288_(_dot_)_jonathan+freebsd-hackers_(_at_)_hst_(_dot_)_org_(_dot_)_za>
>             Jonathan McKeown <jonathan+freebsd-hackers_(_at_)_hst_(_dot_)_org_(_dot_)_za> 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 - especially given that it doesn't 
> : add previously unavailable functionality, and that we have a ports system 
> : which includes a patch stage for dealing with this sort of gratuitous 
> : non-portability in ported applications.
> 
> 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, the harder the sell will be
> for companies wanting to replace their Linux systems with FreeBSD
> ones.  The changes I made were absolutely trivial in the scheme of
> things.
> 
> 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 an
> eye.

So should I expect similar knee-jerk reactions to the just committed
`finger compatibility' option to implement du -l for hardlinks?

I think there *is* value in making things `less hard' for the user
who migrates from Linux, as long as the cost of implementing the
compatibility `shims' is not humongous.  I'm completely baffled by
the reactions to the recent find changes :/

_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe_(_at_)_freebsd_(_dot_)_org"