Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 12:04:21 +0200 From: =?utf-8?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no> To: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: expand_number() for fetch'es -B and -S switches Message-ID: <864oe8mpga.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <20100901222834.GA66517@freebsd.org> (Alexander Best's message of "Wed, 1 Sep 2010 22:28:34 %2B0000") References: <20100831180103.GA92584@freebsd.org> <86fwxt5ng1.fsf@ds4.des.no> <20100901222834.GA66517@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org> writes: > since you're the originator of fetch(1): should i send you a patch to add > expand_numer() to the -B switch or do you think fetch is better off as it= is > now without humanised numbers? Sure, but we need to commit the expand_number() patch first. > i'm not sure, but i think fetch(1) is BSD specific so no POSIX regulation= s need > to be taken into consideration. but you probably know more about this mat= ter. fetch(1) is 100% home-grown. DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?864oe8mpga.fsf>