From owner-freebsd-bugs Tue May 30 18: 0:51 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from jade.chc-chimes.com (jade.chc-chimes.com [216.28.46.6]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4071C37B7BA for ; Tue, 30 May 2000 18:00:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from billf@jade.chc-chimes.com) Received: by jade.chc-chimes.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 96E001C5C; Tue, 30 May 2000 21:00:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 21:00:47 -0400 From: Bill Fumerola To: Doug Barton Cc: Brian Somers , Tim Vanderhoek , freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: bin/18900: patch to add colorizing feature to /bin/ls Message-ID: <20000530210047.W86725@jade.chc-chimes.com> References: <200005310001.BAA28109@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from Doug@gorean.org on Tue, May 30, 2000 at 05:46:34PM -0700 X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 3.3-STABLE i386 Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 05:46:34PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > I don't see anyone asking for 'ls' to wash their breakfast dishes > for them. The facts remain: > > 1. People _do_ want this. It gets asked often on -questions. > 2. The code is already written. > 3. It adds almost no bloat. > 4. It's totally, completely optional. Exactly. > So, other than on "purist" grounds, are there any other > objections? I don't think there can be anything else besides purist objections... -- Bill Fumerola - Network Architect / Computer Horizons Corp - CVM e-mail: billf@chc-chimes.com / billf@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message