From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 27 18:47:23 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AE981065672 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:47:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from outQ.internet-mail-service.net (outQ.internet-mail-service.net [216.240.47.240]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37E628FC25 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:47:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from mx0.idiom.com (HELO idiom.com) (216.240.32.160) by out.internet-mail-service.net (qpsmtpd/0.40) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:47:22 -0800 Received: from julian-mac.elischer.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by idiom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFCB312738C; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:47:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <47C5B04A.40400@elischer.org> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:47:38 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Macintosh/20071031) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: obrien@freebsd.org, Giorgos Keramidas , "M. Warner Losh" , freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, jonathan+freebsd-hackers@hst.org.za References: <200802232322.45288.jonathan+freebsd-hackers@hst.org.za> <20080223.164806.-674897155.imp@bsdimp.com> <20080225203341.GA4150@kobe.laptop> <20080227183113.GA54600@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20080227183113.GA54600@dragon.NUXI.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:47:23 -0000 David O'Brien wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:33:41PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >> On 2008-02-23 16:48, "M. Warner Losh" 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). can we form an anti-knee-jerk cabal that can get a quorum when needed?