From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Jul 3 23:57: 6 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3802637C295; Mon, 3 Jul 2000 23:57:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA11625; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 08:56:57 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: John Baldwin Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Sheldon Hearn Subject: Re: truncate(1) implementation details In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Jul 2000 23:11:15 PDT." <200007040611.XAA37685@john.baldwin.cx> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 08:56:57 +0200 Message-ID: <11623.962693817@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200007040611.XAA37685@john.baldwin.cx>, John Baldwin writes: >After thinking about this further, since people keep pointing to >touch(1)'s -c as a POLA violation wrt to the proposed -c to >truncate(1), I think this points out that many people will view >touch(1) and truncate(1) similary. Thus, if we really want to be >consistent, they should have the same semantics. That is, both >utilities will create files by default if they don't exist, and >both will abstain from creating non-existent files if '-c' is >provided. To me, that is the most consistent way to do it, >especially since people are already grouping touch(1) and >truncate(1) together. I agree. And for what its worth, I would prefer if they were actually one and the same program, and behaviour was determined by examining argv[0]. That way we avoid future divergence. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message