From owner-freebsd-bugs Thu Sep 7 11:40: 5 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C0C37B423 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:40:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.9.3/8.9.2) id LAA85287; Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:40:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:40:02 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200009071840.LAA85287@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Cc: From: Matthew Jacob Subject: Re: bin/21093: New option for restore (patch) Reply-To: Matthew Jacob Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org The following reply was made to PR bin/21093; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Matthew Jacob To: Will Andrews Cc: Stefan Moeding , FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/21093: New option for restore (patch) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 11:30:57 -0700 (PDT) > On Thu, Sep 07, 2000 at 09:30:03AM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > IMO, this is not sufficient enough reason to add the feature. > > I agree with Matt. If X feature does not require complex scripts, it's > probably not going to be added to Y program (see df -c, etc.). If there were some overriding other reason, like, "Amanda needs it", or "PicoBSD needs it and doesn't like to run subshells", or "subshells are bad", I could go for it. It's a trivial change. But, especially for dump (which should Die! Die! Die!), creeping featurism probably should be avoided. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message