Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:47:27 -0800 From: David Schultz <dschultz@uclink.berkeley.edu> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Asking for tester (small patch to chown(8)/chgrp(1)) Message-ID: <20021120174727.GA584@HAL9000.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20021120132743.5a46abbe.Alexander@Leidinger.net> References: <200211161129.gAGBTKHJ033124@lurza.secnetix.de> <20021117155159.44aeae5f.Alexander@Leidinger.net> <200211181807.gAII7u0w015430@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20021119182700.GA3030@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20021120132743.5a46abbe.Alexander@Leidinger.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thus spake Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>: > > > > I'm concerned about the used character: "-r" is similiar to "-R" > > > > > > Yes, `-r' would be a very poor choice for the reason you state. > > > > Agreed, but the precedent has already been set by touch(1) and > > truncate(1). If we're going to get it wrong some of the time, we > > might as well be consistent about it. > > When we don't look at the fact that neither touch nor truncate operate > recursivly... what about changing touch and truncate to allow the > proposed -c (or -i) too and mark -r as deprecated (if it isn't covered > by a standard)? Adding a uniform replacement to all three sounds good to me, as long as there isn't any standard involved. I'm a little bit suspicious given that Solaris touch(1) uses -r to mean the same thing we do. 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?20021120174727.GA584>