Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 23:01:24 +0200 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] adding two new options to 'cp' Message-ID: <ealr31$q1b$1@sea.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <20060731184454.GA84483@megan.kiwi-computer.com> References: <200607271150.k6RBoM9p031745@lurza.secnetix.de> <44C8FB65.9020102@FreeBSD.org> <44CE03D2.2050803@centtech.com> <17614.4005.407223.621637@bhuda.mired.org> <44CE199C.2020500@centtech.com> <17614.8289.134373.387558@bhuda.mired.org> <96b30c400607310847s1d2f845eo212b234d03f51e9a@mail.gmail.com> <20060731172858.GA84042@megan.kiwi-computer.com> <44CE40EA.5080009@centtech.com> <20060731184454.GA84483@megan.kiwi-computer.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rick C. Petty wrote: > "-l" may be a useful option, but at what point is the line drawn between > bloating our base cp and having a gcp port (or using linux_base)?? It's like saying "if you need this option, go to Linux" - it just seems wrong. With all respect to "series of small utilities" way of doing things, I think the "whatever is shorter to type" takes precedence :) And it's not like the added code will have to be changed/maintained in the forseeable future - if the basic implementation is ok, the underlying structures and ideas will not change while UFS semantics are in use.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ealr31$q1b$1>