Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented

On 2008-02-27 10:31, David O'Brien <obrien@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:33:41PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2008-02-23 16:48, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@xxxxxxxxxx> 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 an
eye.

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

You added a new useful feature - and you based the option letter on
prior-art (and resumable doen't conflict with POSIX).

Fortunately, no, there is no conflict :-)

The du(1) manpage at the online version of SUSv3
<http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/000095399/utilities/du.html>
mentions only the -L option, for dereferencing symlinks.

I should have probably mentioned this in the commit log, now that I
think about it.

_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Reproductive Selection
    ... retention of compatibility within an evolving population be accomplished ... Significant functional novelty does exit ... i.e. of conflict among genes. ... So two organisms can mate and produce offspring through entirely ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented
    ... an obvious no-brainer that I frankly didn't expect anybody to bat an ... eye. ... `finger compatibility' option to implement du -l for hardlinks? ... You added a new useful feature - and you based the option letter on ...
    (freebsd-hackers)