Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 13:21:59 +0300 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Paul Richards <paul@originative.co.uk> Cc: Mark Ovens <marko@FreeBSD.org>, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Request for review/comments - new option for uname(1) Message-ID: <39A648C6.CDFD7E0@FreeBSD.org> References: <20000809005929.K250@parish> <20000809143344.L29987@argon.gryphonsoft.com> <20000810003858.D251@parish> <39A645C9.3A68B0CD@originative.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Paul Richards wrote: > Mark Ovens wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 02:33:44PM -0400, Will Andrews wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 12:59:29AM +0100, Mark Ovens wrote: > > > > Is there any reason why this is unacceptable and could not be committed? > > > > > > Because it can be done with an awk/sed script? > > > > > > > I'll forget about it then. I only did it because I was fed up with > > manually editing the output so it was tidier in e-mails and PRs. Like > > I said, it's not important. > > I think this might be one of those rare cases where adding another > option is more efficient than using tools. Running awk/sed to correct > the formatting is overkill when a few printfs in the code would do it > much more efficiently. Introduction of incompatible among others BSD/*nix variants changes in commonly used tools is evil from any point of view (IMO). -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39A648C6.CDFD7E0>