From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 15 03:12:13 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E0C916A4D0; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 03:12:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from axl.seasidesoftware.co.za (axl.seasidesoftware.co.za [196.31.7.201]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D9CC43D64; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 03:04:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from sheldonh@starjuice.net) Received: from sheldonh by axl.seasidesoftware.co.za with local (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD) id 1AVqWb-000GiN-90; Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:04:29 +0200 Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:04:29 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: Alexey Dokuchaev Message-ID: <20031215110429.GR13737@starjuice.net> Mail-Followup-To: Alexey Dokuchaev , Peter Jeremy , Mark Murray , Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav , src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org References: <200312141136.hBEBa2pD043994@grimreaper.grondar.org> <20031215083703.GB956@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> <20031215095049.GA78800@regency.nsu.ru> <20031215104647.GO13737@starjuice.net> <20031215105909.GA97471@regency.nsu.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031215105909.GA97471@regency.nsu.ru> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: src-committers@freebsd.org cc: Mark Murray cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org cc: Peter Jeremy cc: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src Makefile.inc1 X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:12:13 -0000 On (2003/12/15 16:59), Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > Hmmm, I don't know. POSIX suggests that scripts should not rely on the > > output of formatted ls(1) output. > > Yes, that's why having stat(1) in -CURRENT is OK. Since we hardly can > claim 4.x as fully POSIX-compliant, dealing with "ls/stat" trade-off > via ls(1) is not that bad. Agreed. > After all, if we hack needed (minor) functionality into ls(1) and > provide new command line option, we can avoid cumbersome parsing of > `ls -l' output, yet not pulling stat(1) from -CURRENT at the same > time. Well, either way, the script relies on extensions to the POSIX environment. To me, providing stat(1) seems like a tidier move forward. ls(1) is already bloated. However, this is a gut feeling, and thus bikeshed fodder. NetBSD already has stat(1). So in the face of a bikeshed decision, I'm happy to paint ours the same colour as theirs. :-) Ciao, Sheldon.