Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 17:59:51 -0500 (CDT) From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.org> To: rivers@dignus.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com, sastdr@unx.sas.com Subject: Re: Improvemnet of ln(1). Message-ID: <199807122259.RAA02889@detlev.UUCP> In-Reply-To: <199807121310.JAA14646@lakes.dignus.com> (message from Thomas David Rivers on Sun, 12 Jul 1998 09:10:08 -0400 (EDT)) References: <199807121310.JAA14646@lakes.dignus.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> I will personally buy a beer (so long as it's not an American beer) >> for the first five people who can show me current existance of such a >> script. (In other words, a script written during or after this >> discussion doesn't count.) That said, I sincerely doubt I'll have to >> buy a single beer. > I don't know if this counts - If it's existing code that runs on BSD, whether public or private, it counts. I don't want to break anything. Let me make sure I've got all the details. > but the source/build management system at SAS would > break... technically, it's a program that scans the output. The > code doesn't employ reasonable return-codes for some ungodly > reasons, and thus, there are 'scraping scripts' that read through > several gigs worth out shell/compiler/utility output and "decide" if > the build was successful. Ugh. > Changing the behaviour of ln, as you suggest, would likely break all > of that 'log scraping' code. [Who knows how many questionable 'ln' > commands are embedded within this spaghetti.] By questionable ln commands, you mean ln -s's that link to files that don't exist at the time of the command is issued? > Believe me; as I'm the manager of the compiler group; and I am > expressly prohibited from changing even the smallest typo in a > compiler message; much less adding a new one - for fear of such a > calamity. The argument is that a broken 'script scraper' costs > several thousands of developers a couple of days while it's > repaired... we're talking man-years here of wasted time... I don't > buy it myself - but that's the rule I live under. Okay. If it is your own belief that adding a new message would break things, then I'll accept that. (I just want it to be your own belief, not something handed down on high that you believe is a product of FUD.) If this code does these things, that is: (1) Creates a symbolic link to a file that doesn't exist at the time, and (2) analyzes the output of ln's stderr, and (3) would likely break on the addition of a new line in the input of [2], then please email me with the name of your favorite beer, and the address of the liquor store where you want to pick it up. (Alternatively, if you live in Texas, I may be in your area soon, and would be happy to buy you the beer in person.) Happy hacking, joelh -- Joel Ray Holveck - joelh@gnu.org - http://www.wp.com/piquan Fourth law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation - core dumped To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199807122259.RAA02889>