Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented
- From: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:06:01 +0000
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2008-02-23 16:48, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:FWIW, a vote in favour of compatibility shims.
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?
It's just a shame that this won't cut both ways - it would be nice, for example, if Linux find would implement proper units to -atime etc. The FreeBSD syntax of -atime +12h is so much nicer than -amin +720. Ah well, can but dream...
--Alex
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented
- From: Jonathan McKeown
- Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented
- References:
- find -lname and -ilname implemented
- From: Jonathan McKeown
- Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented
- From: M. Warner Losh
- Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented
- From: Giorgos Keramidas
- find -lname and -ilname implemented
- Prev by Date: Re: emulate an end-of-media
- 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
|
|
