Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 04:35:58 -0400 From: "John W. De Boskey" <jwd@bsdwins.com> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org>, Current List <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>, wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Re: cp -d dir patch for review (or 'xargs'?) Message-ID: <20010420043558.A81959@bsdwins.com> In-Reply-To: <p05100c07b7057cbfd978@[128.113.24.47]>; from drosih@rpi.edu on Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 01:57:01AM -0400 References: <20010420050842.E8EA93E2F@bazooka.unixfreak.org> <p05100c07b7057cbfd978@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
If you just want an xargs that supports --replstr/-i simply
install:
ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/findutils
or even more easily:
/usr/ports/misc/findutils
two comments:
I don't want to enter a protracted discussion over the
benefits/drawbacks of the current xargs vs an updated
xargs, nor try to do a write-from-scratch.
The cp -d option has runtime execution of O(1). Xargs
addes O(n) due to it's manipulation of the arguement vector
in -i mode. The process I'm dealing with already takes
many hours to run. I want to reduce time, not increase it.
Comments welcome.
-john
----- Garance A Drosihn's Original Message -----
> At 10:08 PM -0700 4/19/01, Dima Dorfman wrote:
> >Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> writes:
> > > Or maybe something to indicate where the list of arguments
> >> should go in a command. Hrm. Let's say '-Y replstr' or
> >> '-y[replstr]' (no blank after -y). If no [replstr] is
> >> given on -y, it defaults to the two characters '[]'.
> >> Then one might do:
> >> cat big_file_list | xargs -y cp [] target_directory
> >
> >This is a great idea! I'm willing to implement it if nobody
> >else wants to.
>
> Woo-hoo! Someone to do the work! Yes!
>
> > > you're trying to address. On the other hand, the man page
> >> for 'xargs' on FreeBSD says:
> >>
> >> The xargs utility is expected to be IEEE Std 1003.2
> >> (``POSIX.2'') compliant.
> >>
> >> so I don't know how we go about adding options to it. On
> >> the other hand, that same issue is faced by adding options
> >> to 'cp', as there is a similar claim made in cp's man page.
> >
> >I don't think it's a problem. We're adding new options here, not
> >changing--sometimes known as breaking--what already exists. I'm
> >pretty sure that the standards don't say anything to the effect of,
> >"You must support this and nothing else." That'd be rather silly.
>
> Actually, it's not as silly as it sounds. If you're writing
> scripts, and you use those extra parameters, then you'll get
> into trouble when running the script on some other POSIX-based
> OS which does not have these new options.
>
> I really do like the idea of both the -I/-i options from solaris,
> and the -Y/-y options that I just dreamed up, but I'm not sure
> what the right procedure is to introduce them (and eventually
> have them standard everywhere... :-). Maybe we could initially
> have a 'yargs' command, which is just like 'xargs' except that
> it adds those four options. Maybe I'm just overly pedantic.
>
> Hmm. Checking my copy of "Single Unix Specification, v2", the
> -I/-i parameters are defined in THAT standard, but it doesn't
> have anything matching my -Y/-y suggestion. Hmm, I wonder if
> I should be copying this "meta-question" to the mailing list
> for standardizing things...
>
> --
> Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@eclipse.acs.rpi.edu
> Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org
> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
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?20010420043558.A81959>