Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 13:57:04 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Ulrich Sp??rlein <uqs@FreeBSD.org>, Xin LI <delphij@FreeBSD.org>, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r204103 - in head/usr.bin: . seq Message-ID: <20100220135704.GA57372@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20100220133520.GB57731@acme.spoerlein.net> References: <201002192354.o1JNsCZJ035886@svn.freebsd.org> <20100220115838.GB94735@FreeBSD.org> <20100220133520.GB57731@acme.spoerlein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 02:35:20PM +0100, Ulrich Sp??rlein wrote: > On Sat, 20.02.2010 at 11:58:38 +0000, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > Why do we need [seq] when we have jot(1)? > > Compatibility with shell scripts, I suppose. Some ports may use seq(1) > in their test or build targets, etc. There is no jot(1) on any Linux or > Solaris I've seen so usage of seq(1) is fairly common. True, jot(1) is BSD specific. But if we speak for ports, trivial patch can turn seq(1) expression into jot(1) one, thus getting rid of gratuitous dependency. > I wonder though, if we could merge functionality into jot(1) and employ > a link to seq. I would probably be OK with the last suggestion. :-) ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100220135704.GA57372>