Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:35:56 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> Subject: Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented Message-ID: <20080223123556.3eee709d@bhuda.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20080223.000308.686168314.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20080222.225937.-146245356.imp@bsdimp.com> <20080223.000308.686168314.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:03:08 -0700 (MST) "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > Sorry to be lame and follow up to my original email, but Ruslan was > way too quick to give me feedback :-) > > I also did a few more of the really easy ones, and added a list of > ones that we haven't implemented yet. > > Comments? How about a question: why are you turning the FreeBSD find into the GNU find? The changes in the first patch looked like they added real functionality that wasn't available in other tools. These seem to be gratuitous changes to make things compatible with GNU. If I want a GNU-compatible find on FreeBSD, I can install the misc/findutils port. If I really wanted the GNU toolset, I could run them on a Linux kernel. However, I'm more comfortable with the Unix toolset (which GNU, as it's own name points out, *isn't*), so the direction taken by these patches make me more than a bit uncomfortable. Hence the question: why are you turning the FreeBSD find into the GNU find? <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080223123556.3eee709d>