From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Sep 26 07:39:11 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id HAA17256
          for current-outgoing; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 07:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from haywire.DIALix.COM (haywire.DIALix.COM [192.203.228.65])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id HAA17198
          for <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 07:39:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from news@localhost) by haywire.DIALix.COM (8.7.5/8.7.3) id WAA16831 for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Thu, 26 Sep 1996 22:38:52 +0800 (WST)
Received: from GATEWAY by haywire.DIALix.COM with netnews
	for freebsd-current@freebsd.org (problems to: usenet@haywire.dialix.com)
To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Date: 26 Sep 1996 14:38:51 GMT
From: peter@spinner.DIALix.COM (Peter Wemm)
Message-ID: <52e4hr$fqt$1@haywire.DIALix.COM>
Organization: DIALix Services, Perth, Australia.
References: <199609241530.JAA06226@rover.village.org>
Subject: Re: install on {Net,Open}BSD vs install on FreeBSD
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

In article <199609241537.JAA06948@rocky.mt.sri.com>,
	nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) writes:
>> Why is there so much resistance to 10 lines of code already integrated
>> and tested in NetBSD and OpenBSD?
> 
> Why is gets() considered to be a 'bad thing'?  Because it encourages bad
> programming practices when a better solution already exists.
> 
> Why is 'install -d' considered to be a 'bad thing'?  Because it
> encourage bad installation practices when a better installation method
> exists.
> 
> Since the FreeBSD source tree has no need for it (we have a good
> solution), and the functionality is available for folks that need it in
> our 'provided' sources (GNU-install), then there is no need to 'pollute'
> our tree with software that encourages bad practice.

Sorry this is late in the argument, but there is one very important hole
in the argument...  install is *not* specifically designed solely for the
purpose of installing FreeBSD build objects into the FreeBSD executable
tree.  It's a general purpose tool used by a damn lot of other source
packages...  Just because FreeBSD doesn't need it doesn't mean it's not
useful.

Saying that "it shouldn't have -d because we have mkdir -p" doesn't hold
either because by the same argument, we shouldn't have -C, -o, -g, -m,
-s, -f and -c, because we already have cmp, chown, chgrp, chmod, strip,
chflags, and both cp and mv.

Anyway, that's my $0.02 worth.
 
> Nate

-Peter