Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 23:29:19 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Bert JW Regeer <xistence@0x58.com> Cc: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>, Steven Kreuzer <skreuzer@exit2shell.com> Subject: Re: OpenBSD sdiff Question Message-ID: <20080316062919.GB88526@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <432044E0-812E-4C13-A62D-EEA7170DADB9@0x58.com> References: <20080314231404.GB99765@scruffy.exit2shell.com> <20080315135916.GH68662@dracon.ht-systems.ru> <432044E0-812E-4C13-A62D-EEA7170DADB9@0x58.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 03:21:01PM -0700, Bert JW Regeer wrote: > Even if BSD has no tradition to keep a separate program version, it is > still very handy to be able to give this data to other developers if > something is failing. $ ident failing-binary is the output that means something. A version string will not. > Programs that don't have a -v or --version switch are frustrating to Anyone used to working on BSD will not expect a -v switch. It isn't part of BSD tradition. The simple fact there is no obivous "version" to print just shows that in a OS that is developed and built as a whole, having a version on the util is meaningless. > Dropping -v would be a bad thing, and make the tools not compatible, > thus breaking many scripts that do expect a -v. Come on, how many scripts do you write that do "sdiff -v" today? -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080316062919.GB88526>