Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented
- From: Brooks Davis <brooks@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:49:13 -0600
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" <imp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message: <20080223123556.3eee709d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mike Meyer <mwm@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
: On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:03:08 -0700 (MST) "M. Warner Losh" <imp@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 implemented yet.
: >
: > Comments?
:
: 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 with GNU.
The changes aren't gratuitous. They are well thought out to ensure
maximum compatibility.
That they add no new functionality, but only exist to make things
compatible with GNU are what make them gratuitous to me.
It is yet another barrier to entry for people converting from Linux to
FreeBSD. There's lots of useful scripts that have been written for
the embedded world that, sadly, assume more functionality in our tools
than are present. They don't always do nice autoconf things to find
the right tool to use. The trivial differences between gnu find and
our find serve no real purpose.
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.
While I understand that it's easier to fix the BSD find, have you
tried filing bug reports with patches for the tools that assume GNU
find? That would help people outside the BSD community as well.
I think you may underestimate the value of compatibility. For example, I
think a lot of the successes bsdtar is having are due to the fact that
it's as much of a dropin replacement for gnutar is possible. If we want
to increase our market share one of the ways we can do it is to make
things easier for people who are interested in adopting our technologies
for what ever reason. If we can spend a few KB here and there to make
their transition easier, I think it's well worth it.
-- Brooks
Attachment:
pgpxYryzygWUz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented
- From: Mike Meyer
- Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented
- References:
- find -lname and -ilname implemented
- From: M. Warner Losh
- Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented
- From: M. Warner Losh
- Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented
- From: Mike Meyer
- Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented
- From: M. Warner Losh
- Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented
- From: Mike Meyer
- find -lname and -ilname implemented
- Prev by Date: Re: /boot/loader graphics support & extensibility
- Next by Date: Re: Security Flaw in Popular Disk Encryption Technologies
- Previous by thread: Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented
- Next by thread: Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|