Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:06:01 +0000 From: Alex Zbyslaw <xfb52@dial.pipex.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented Message-ID: <47C349D9.8090504@dial.pipex.com> In-Reply-To: <20080225203341.GA4150@kobe.laptop> References: <200802232322.45288.jonathan%2Bfreebsd-hackers@hst.org.za> <20080223.164806.-674897155.imp@bsdimp.com> <20080225203341.GA4150@kobe.laptop>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >On 2008-02-23 16:48, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > >>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? > > FWIW, a vote in favour of compatibility shims. It's just a shame that this won't cut both ways - it would be nice, for example, if Linux find would implement proper units to -atime etc. The FreeBSD syntax of -atime +12h is so much nicer than -amin +720. Ah well, can but dream... --Alex
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47C349D9.8090504>