From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 25 20:48:18 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7359A16A404 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:48:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from igloo.linux.gr (igloo.linux.gr [62.1.205.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E550B13C448 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:48:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from kobe.laptop (adsl92-189.kln.forthnet.gr [77.49.59.189]) (authenticated bits=0) by igloo.linux.gr (8.14.1/8.14.1/Debian-9) with ESMTP id m1PKXgRx021273; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:33:48 +0200 Received: by kobe.laptop (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BFC4122802; Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:33:41 +0200 (EET) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:33:41 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: "M. Warner Losh" Message-ID: <20080225203341.GA4150@kobe.laptop> References: <200802232322.45288.jonathan+freebsd-hackers@hst.org.za> <20080223.164806.-674897155.imp@bsdimp.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080223.164806.-674897155.imp@bsdimp.com> X-Hellug-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Hellug-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-3.906, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, AWL 0.49, BAYES_00 -2.60) X-Hellug-MailScanner-From: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr X-Spam-Status: No Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, jonathan+freebsd-hackers@hst.org.za Subject: Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:48:18 -0000 On 2008-02-23 16:48, "M. Warner Losh" wrote: > In message: <200802232322.45288.jonathan+freebsd-hackers@hst.org.za> > Jonathan McKeown writes: > : Yes, where it makes sense. I'm not at all convinced that this change makes as > : much sense as you obviously think it does - especially given that it doesn't > : add previously unavailable functionality, and that we have a ports system > : which includes a patch stage for dealing with this sort of gratuitous > : non-portability in ported applications. > > The change absolutely makes sense, and so far none of the arguments > against it are really worth the time to respond to. I'm using > packages not in the ports system. Frankly, the more gratuitous > differences with the gnu tools we have, the harder the sell will be > for companies wanting to replace their Linux systems with FreeBSD > ones. The changes I made were absolutely trivial in the scheme of > things. > > This knee-jerk reaction against gnu find functionality baffles me. > The changes are trivial and make FreeBSD more compatible. It is such > an obvious no-brainer that I frankly didn't expect anybody to bat an > eye. So should I expect similar knee-jerk reactions to the just committed `finger compatibility' option to implement du -l for hardlinks? I think there *is* value in making things `less hard' for the user who migrates from Linux, as long as the cost of implementing the compatibility `shims' is not humongous. I'm completely baffled by the reactions to the recent find changes :/