Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:04:51 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: stas@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented Message-ID: <20080225180451.GD81874@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20080224.124339.-1302545914.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20080222.225937.-146245356.imp@bsdimp.com> <20080223.000308.686168314.imp@bsdimp.com> <20080224171155.GD51827@dracon.ht-systems.ru> <20080224.124339.-1302545914.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:43:39PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> : > { "-empty", c_empty, f_empty, 0 },
> : > { "-exec", c_exec, f_exec, 0 },
> : > { "-execdir", c_exec, f_exec, F_EXECDIR },
> : > - { "-false", c_simple, f_not, 0 },
> : > + { "-false", c_simple, f_false, 0 },
> :
> : This brakes FreeBSD compatiblity in the favor of GNU. What will
> : old FreeBSD user think when his scripts will stop working
> : after next cvsup? I suppose our target not to make FreeBSD
> : to look like Linux. If you want to add GNU-like false option,
> : please, add it under the different name.
>
> I considered it, but rejected it. The current -false option doesn't
> make any sense at all, likely isn't used, is just a short-cut for '!'
> and had a very dubious justification when it was committed.
Hum... did you survey a sufficient number of folks to get a feel for its
usage in the wild? Do the other BSD's have this option and how have they
implemented it? Changing existing BSD behavior to match GNU seems wrong
on the surface as compatibility with FreeBSD is definitely > compatibility
with GNU.
If you have looked into these things - cool.
--
-- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080225180451.GD81874>