From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Aug 7 13:13:10 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id NAA04576 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:13:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eac.iafrica.com (196-7-119-243.iafrica.com [196.7.119.243]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA04525 for ; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 13:12:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from rnordier@localhost) by eac.iafrica.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id WAA01015; Wed, 7 Aug 1996 22:09:26 +0200 From: Robert Nordier Message-Id: <199608072009.WAA01015@eac.iafrica.com> Subject: Re: perhaps i am just stupid. To: tcg@ime.net Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 22:09:25 +0200 (SAT) Cc: rnordier@iafrica.com, dgy@rtd.com, questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <3208EC03.7D5F@ime.net> from "Gary Chrysler" at Aug 7, 96 03:18:27 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8a] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Gary Chrysler wrote: > > > > Another complication: DOS "sort" is little-used, broken, and may > > > > not be in the PATH. > > > > > > I see no need for that ... ... :) > > > I reley on sort as much as I reley on find. (ms-dos's) > > > > DOS sort is evil and DOS find is more evil. :) > > > > On UNIX/BSD, assuming /usr/bin/sort and /usr/bin/fgrep is reasonable. > > I think corresponding DOS assumptions are much riskier. > > Like I said, I see no reason to sort it anyways. > > Yes, dos find and sort are brain dead! Misinterpreted your DOS sort/find comment: apologies. However, unless some sorting takes place, the files may end up being processed out of order. This may not be a likely problem, but it is a sufficiently possible one to need taking into account. I actually had to do a DOS cksum-like clone, years ago, and for compatibility it was necessary to sort the file args during the globbing. Unfortunately this is something ports from UNIX frequently don't take into account. -- Robert Nordier