Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 13:00:26 -0700 From: Oleg Moskalenko <oleg.moskalenko@citrix.com> To: 'Chad Perrin' <code@apotheon.net>, "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org" <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: CFT: new BSD-licensed sort available Message-ID: <031222CBCF33214AB2EB4ABA279428A30107B5E9D2AE@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> In-Reply-To: <20120318181441.GA7162@hemlock.hydra> References: <4F60C059.7060904@FreeBSD.org> <44pqcd8yhd.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <CADLo83_r3SgYj6apifN6NTCwZ-ApYbLkyMOS5zcCmTFst_Vcow@mail.gmail.com> <4462e46ul7.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <031222CBCF33214AB2EB4ABA279428A30107B5E9D2AB@SJCPMAILBOX01.citrite.net> <44pqc9vs99.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> <20120318181441.GA7162@hemlock.hydra>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I guess that using a not-backward-compatible syntax would make it difficult= for some users to accept.=20 We are going to have a newer 1.7 build soon that supports older pre-POSIX s= yntax (among other improvements).=20 It is "guarded" by #ifdef. If Gabor decides to eliminate this backward comp= atibility, he can easily=20 remove -D option from the Makefile.=20 Regards, Oleg -----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.o= rg] On Behalf Of Chad Perrin Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2012 11:15 AM To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: CFT: new BSD-licensed sort available On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 11:33:06AM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > Oleg Moskalenko <oleg.moskalenko@citrix.com> writes: > > > > Yes, indeed, there was an old sort syntax, where they supported it in > > a form "+POS1 -POS2". It is a non-POSIX obsolete syntax, so we did > > not implement it in the new BSD sort. I can add it, if necessary. >=20 > If anyone asked for my opinion, I'd say that I'd prefer to see this > syntax stamped out instead; it's unnecessary, confusing, and has been > considered obsolete for decades. A quick look over my workstation's > filesystems shows just a few uses: in texconfig, libtool, something in > X11/config, maybe a handful more. >=20 > I'm not sure what the best answer is in practice, but I'm willing to > spend some of my time working on it if that helps. I suspect the "right" answer for the near future would be to eliminate dependence on it wherever you can get such changes accepted by upstream, and support it as a deprecated (perhaps even undocumented) feature in bsdsort just so it's easier to entirely eliminate any dependence on gnusort for purposes of backward compatibility. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?031222CBCF33214AB2EB4ABA279428A30107B5E9D2AE>