Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:20:15 +0100 (MET) From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New patch: one thing to think about Message-ID: <199801111520.QAA28341@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980105174101.10021A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net> References: <19980105091229.49254@uriah.heep.sax.de> <Pine.BSF.3.96.980105174101.10021A-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
=?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru> wrote: > I think Posix insist here on pure functionality separation as Unix > principle, i.e. making patch *is* main function of the "patch", but > producing backup *is not*. Well, but it's nevertheless silly of Posix. In order to really separate the functionality, you had to write another program besides patch that would walk through the diff, derive the pathnames to be patched the same way patch(1) would do, then make backup copies of all files. Obviously, those Posix people never had to use patch(1), or they wouldn't have come up with that nonsense. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199801111520.QAA28341>