Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:31:13 -0800 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@freebsd.org> To: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, jonathan+freebsd-hackers@hst.org.za Subject: Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented Message-ID: <20080227183113.GA54600@dragon.NUXI.org> 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
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:33:41PM +0200, 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? You added a new useful feature - and you based the option letter on prior-art (and resumable doen't conflict with POSIX). -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080227183113.GA54600>