Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:42:23 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Gabor Kovesdan <gabor@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Steven Kreuzer <skreuzer@exit2shell.com> Subject: Re: Port of OpenBSD's sdiff Message-ID: <20070625114124.E2623@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <467E81BC.7060507@FreeBSD.org> References: <20070622210119.GA4186@clamps.exit2shell.com> <467C45C7.6020401@FreeBSD.org> <20070624034649.63ebc0b7.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20070624020734.R17867@fledge.watson.org> <467E81BC.7060507@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --0-435981513-1182768143=:2623 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Gabor Kovesdan wrote: > Robert Watson escribi=F3: >> On Sun, 24 Jun 2007, Stanislav Sedov wrote: >>>=20 >>> Personally, I see no point in adding -- style options, since the entire= =20 >>> our world build without them. GNU people can always install gnu- ports,= we=20 >>> just should insure they're posix compatible. >>>=20 >>> Furthermore, having -- and - style options in one world effectively bro= ke=20 >>> BSD's perfect look and feel:-) >>=20 >> On the other hand -- intentionally breaking scripts that have worked wit= h=20 >> FreeBSD for years isn't exactly the best way to make end-users happy. >>=20 > How you mean this? The current GNU textproc tools have those -- options. = How=20 > would that break scripts, then? > > Personally, I don't need or insist on having -- style options, but curren= tly=20 > we have those and people might have got used to them. If we change the=20 > available options by just changing to the BSD-licensed ones without a dee= per=20 > look of their functionality, we might break POLA. > > Moreover, the BSD-licensed ones have some of those, too as I wrote before= ,=20 > thus we just need to document them in the accompanying manpages. It's=20 > strange, but the manpages don't cover the existing long options, maybe th= e=20 > OpenBSD people didn't want people to use them. Ah, OK -- I read the e-mail as stating that the options didn't exit in the= =20 OpenBSD tools, yet proposing moving to them, and hence was concerned about= =20 compatibility with existing scripts. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge --0-435981513-1182768143=:2623--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070625114124.E2623>