On 3/4/24 18:03, enh wrote: > On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 3:31 PM Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote: >> >> On 3/4/24 12:19, enh via Toybox wrote: >> > obviously the patch is trivial, but i can't think of an existing >> > toybox tool that has one of these "you're holding it wrong" errors, >> > but this is one that i do find useful: >> >> I thought there was one in tar but couldn't find it. Gzip has "need -f to >> read TTY". >> >> I'm not conceptually against "this CAN'T work" errors. (Except this isn't an >> error, it prints to stderr and then exits with 0. Seems a bit indecisive...) > > /facepalm > > (probably no-one noticed yet because it's most likely to be hit > interactively. still seems like a bug though!)
Well, a warning isn't exactly an error...? It's design-level indecision. Is this a problem or not? >> > where i'm left wondering why >> > it can't just do the right thing... since `/` is illegal in a POSIX >> > name, what other interpretation could there be? but, still, better >> > than nothing.) >> >> I'd be happy to do the right thing instead? Fairly minor code change either >> way. Thinking about it more, the "right thing" might be for -name to match the trailing whole entries, so if you "find toybox -name pending/git.c" it could come up with "toybox/toys/pending/git.c". Or in my case, my ~/toybox work directory has... 21 toybox repo directories under it (basically instead of branches+stash), so "find . -name toys/*/git.c" could find all the instances of that file using a more shell-like expansion syntax, even if there are subdirectories in the way (such as, real example, ~/toybox/android/toybox/toys/pending/git.c). This is getting us away from "minor code change", though. But I think I already have code for this in... tar.c maybe? All that --anchored stuff calling do_filter() calling fnmatch. Not that hard to do it again with a model at hand. :) > yeah, i'm not sure why coreutils doesn't do that --- perhaps to avoid > the question of whether `-name bits/syscall.h` means `-wholename > .*bits/sycalls.h` or `-wholename .*/bits/syscall.h`? > > (`-path` with a trailing `/` is a similarly unhelpful sharp corner.) My brain is FRIED by packing to move, and I would need test cases with proposed output to follow the distinctions you're making there. I'm also a little confused about what "-wholename" is for given that the shell already does path expansion? I guess it's so you don't get your wildcards back as a result when there's no match? Hmmm... ah, I see, * can eat slashes here, and the shell won't do that. And... what does -path do again? In the toybox directory, none of these produce a result with the host find or toybox find: find . -path pending find . -path toys/pending find . -path toys/pending/ip.c It's been some years since I implemented this stuff. What do the tests do... $ mkdir dir $ touch dir/file $ find . -wholename 'dir*e' find: ‘./dirtest/subdir’: Permission denied $ find dir -wholename 'dir*e' dir/file Ah, the ./ at the start is preventing both -wholename and -path from matching, because of course. >> We could even ping the coreutils guys about that, since they recently agreed >> to >> add -x when I grumped at them. (I'm moving house! It's very stressful!) >> Speaking >> of, I just remembered to ping busybox list about that... Alas, still no cut >> -DF >> in coreutils, last I checked... > > tbh, since starting to read the coreutils list i'm _less_ convinced > that anyone really thinks about anything, Coreutils is gnu. > and especially not about interactions between things. It's very gnu. Your expectations weren't low enough. There's a reason I started poking at busybox back in 2002. The gnu project was announced in 1983, and gnu/hurd remains unusable essentially today. > (i saw the -x,--swap thread but didn't > have the energy to point out the -x,--exchange would have been quite a > bit less unclear...) I know, but I only cared about A) the short option, B) having mv finally able to call that rename() functionality the linux kernel added ten years ago. (Which came up again recently with a patch implementing atomic exchange in the VFAT driver.) Letting the --longopt smell like that particular gatekeeper is fine with me, I never voluntarily use them, and it's sort of the opposite of an ablative duck: https://bwiggs.com/notebook/queens-duck/ He got to keep --swap. He _wanted_ it to be called --swap. Which meant he wanted the feature to go in, because otherwise it couldn't be called --swap. >> Rob Rob P.S. Oddly enough, while Linux beat gnu because gnu sucked, Linux beat BSD using the standard disruptive technology playbook Clayton Christensen described in the Innovator's Dilemma in 1997. The problem FreeBSD had back in 1991 was it was big iron tech ported down to PCs and didn't fit comfortably in the smaller space. A bit like IBM's OS/2, which was full of System Object Model implementations of Common Object Request Broker Architecture, in triplicate. Disruptive technologies start at the bottom and expand upmarket, not down. Linux started life on a cheap white box PC a college student bought with birthday money and the proceeds from selling his sinclair QL (on which he had previously written his own multitasking operating system, so Linux was his SECOND GO at it), and Linux was a cheap white box OS also assembled from eclectic parts. Back when Alan Cox left the Amiga for PC unix, he picked Linux instead of FreeBSD because (at the time) Linux didn't require an expensive FPU coprocessor and FreeBSD wouldn't boot without one. Linux never assumed you could afford optional components, because Linus couldn't. Linux exploded in 1993 when NSF changed the IETF AUP to allow commercial use of the internet because an old 386 in a closet could be a web server no matter how crappy the cast-off parts you slapped together were, while BSD had minimum system requirements meaning you needed a budget to buy new hardware. By the time anybody was willing to spend MONEY on this web thing, Linux had been running the company's web page for 18 months. Linux was a standalone source package with a collection of random detritus for userspace, hand-rolled or ported from minix, bsd, gnu, it used a shell script for "echo"... Seriously, get a feel for what 1991 and 1992 were like from this: https://landley.net/history/mirror/linux/1991.html https://landley.net/history/mirror/linux/1992.html Meanwhile FreeBSD was an integrated whole with all of userspace checked into the same CVS repository as the kernel, maintained by the same team, built as a single seamless unit. This was a DOWNSIDE. A project like busybox or uclibc trying to emerge under BSD was like trying to install netscape on Windows back when Internet Explorer was part of the base OS. Linux was a whitebox PC assembled out of parts, BSD was like a Macintosh: all Official Components were expected to always be there on every system, and replacing anything with strange third party aftermarket knockoffs was not supported. (I mean, technically you could, but WHY? It was weird.) _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
