From owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 23 09:40:12 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA4937B401 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:40:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE4A43F93 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:40:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6NGeBUp031826 for ; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:40:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h6NGeB6k031825; Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 09:40:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200307231640.h6NGeB6k031825@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org From: Andy Farkas Subject: Re: bin/54784: find -ls wastes space X-BeenThere: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Andy Farkas List-Id: Bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 16:40:12 -0000 The following reply was made to PR bin/54784; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Andy Farkas To: Peter Pentchev Cc: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/54784: find -ls wastes space Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 02:34:01 +1000 (EST) On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Peter Pentchev wrote: > In the past, people have objected strongly to changing the output of > ps(1) for exactly this reason. IMHO, there are several reasons not > to rely on whitespace in parsing the output of ls(1) or find(1); > for a trivial, though somewhat rare, example, consider whitespace in > the localized representation of date and time. If there are objections, I'd like to hear the reasons. I think if you are relying on a fixed-width formatted string returned from a utility, then you are relying on the wrong thing. > Other than that, there might be the human problem of comparing the > output of 'find' run on different machines with different usernames, Different machines may have different values of UT_NAMESIZE. A human comapring two lists would be able to compensate. > or even on the same machine, different directories owned by different > users; the columns, and sometimes line continuations, would be all out > of whack. No. The computed value of namelength is same for all users on the same machine. -- :{ andyf@speednet.com.au Andy Farkas System Administrator Speednet Communications http://www.speednet.com.au/