Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 15:45:18 -0400 (EDT) From: Brian Clapper <bmc@WillsCreek.COM> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <n@nectar.com> Cc: SADA Kenji <sada@bsdclub.org>, ports@FreeBSD.org, ust@cert.siemens.de, andrews@technologist.com, rjoseph@mammalia.org Subject: Re: sysutils/fileutils Message-ID: <200007181945.PAA71019@tributary.inside.willscreek.com> In-Reply-To: <20000718140737.B1464@hamlet.nectar.com> References: <20000716134043.A89318@manatee.mammalia.org> <200007181616.BAA25662@home.bsdclub.org> <20000718140737.B1464@hamlet.nectar.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 18 July, 2000, at 14:07 (-0500) Jacques A. Vidrine <n@nectar.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 01:16:37AM +0900, SADA Kenji wrote: > > In article <20000716134043.A89318@manatee.mammalia.org> > > rjoseph@mammalia.org writes: > > >> I do. I use gnuls and would not want to install all of the fileutils just > > >> to use it. If you do get rid of gnuls, then please create some option that > > >> would allow the person using the port to decide which of the utils to install. > > > > How about removing gnuls from sysutils/fileutils ? > > This is bogus. GNU ls is part of fileutils. IMHO, there should never > have been a gnuls port. Perhaps, as maintainer of the "bogus" gnuls port, I ought to clarify my position on this matter. I originally created the gnuls port because I preferred the GNU version of colorized "ls" to the "colorls" port; it's especially useful to have the same colorized "ls" program when one is using both BSD and Linux systems, as I frequently do. I chose to build *just* GNU's "ls" command, because it seemed silly to install all of the fileutils package, when (a) all I wanted was the colorized "ls", and (b) BSD UNIX already has perfectly good versions of the other tools that are in fileutils. I believe the case for "ls" is different than the case for the other GNU fileutils commands. The colorization features embodied in GNU "ls" are sufficiently different from the BSD stock "ls" and from the "colorls" port that the GNU version of "ls" is worth having as an alternative. I cannot say the same for the GNU fileutils programs; for me, they are not sufficiently "better"that I want to use the GNU versions instead of the stock BSD versions. That reasoning is still valid, from my point of view. If all I want is the GNU colorized ls, why make me also install GNU's versions of mv, cp, mkdir, rmdir, mknod, mkfifo, df, ln, du, etc. -- especially when I'm *never* going to use them? However, removing gnuls from fileutils also doesn't make much sense. If I install the fileutils port, I expect to get *all* of it, not some arbitrary subset. If there were a way to install a partial port (e.g., select just "gls" from the "fileutils" port), that would solve the dilemma. But that does not appear to be possible with the current ports setup. FWIW, I plan to continue to maintain the "bogus" gnuls port as a separate entity from the "fileutils" port, if only for my own personal use. It doesn't really matter to me whether the "gnuls" port is part of the official FreeBSD ports release or not; I find it useful, so I plan to keep using it. If enough people feel that it has been superceded by the "fileutils" port and no longer belongs in the ports collection, then by all means, remove it with my blessing. For those who still wish to install *just* gnuls (and not the entire set of GNU fileutils), I'll be sure to make an unofficial port available from my web site. Brian Clapper, bmc@WillsCreek.COM To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007181945.PAA71019>