From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Aug 13  7:49: 1 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from axl.noc.iafrica.com (axl.noc.iafrica.com [196.31.1.175])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 668D914EE1
	for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 07:48:52 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sheldonh@axl.noc.iafrica.com)
Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.noc.iafrica.com)
	by axl.noc.iafrica.com with local-esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
	id 11FId6-000CNN-00
	for hackers@freebsd.org; Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:48:24 +0200
From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
To: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: New tests for test(1) 
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 1999 16:48:24 +0200
Message-ID: <47576.934555704@axl.noc.iafrica.com>
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG


Hi folks,

The pdksh-derived test(1) used by NetBSD and OpenBSD has made it through
a ``make world'' and package run on my box. It passes the regression
tests supplied with our own test(1) in exactly the same way as our own
test(1) does, and shows no noticeable performance difference.

I've mentioned several times that portability is a non-issue here
and haven't heard any rebuttals. I have a PR open (PR 13091) for
replacing our test(1) with the one used by {Net,Open}BSD. The
PR contains a diff which you should ignore. Rather look at
http://www.freebsd.org/~sheldonh/test/ :-)

So are there any reasonable ojections to our following the lead of our
sister free-BSD's?

Ciao,
Sheldon.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message