From owner-freebsd-current Wed Nov 20 9:48:11 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2B8837B401 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:48:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (12-232-220-15.client.attbi.com [12.232.220.15]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AB5D43E97 for ; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:48:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.berkeley.edu) Received: from HAL9000.homeunix.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gAKHlqm9000668; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:47:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.berkeley.edu) Received: (from das@localhost) by HAL9000.homeunix.com (8.12.6/8.12.5/Submit) id gAKHlRM1000667; Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:47:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dschultz@uclink.berkeley.edu) Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2002 09:47:27 -0800 From: David Schultz To: Alexander Leidinger Cc: Garrett Wollman , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Asking for tester (small patch to chown(8)/chgrp(1)) Message-ID: <20021120174727.GA584@HAL9000.homeunix.com> Mail-Followup-To: Alexander Leidinger , Garrett Wollman , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021120132743.5a46abbe.Alexander@Leidinger.net> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Thus spake Alexander Leidinger : > > > > 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