Jim Meyering wrote: > Thanks for doing that. > At first glance, you got it all. > Except maybe the texinfo documentation... > Yep. There's a mention of shred in the "Random sources" section. > So now we'd have to say how shred's --random-source works > and that its default is different from those of shuf and sort... > > Have you considered keeping the semantics of --random-source > the same for all three programs?
I did, but was conservative and only steered the bulk random generator (shred) away from /dev/urandom by default. > Things that ease the documentation burden by keeping inter-tool > differences to a minimum are usually also good from usability > and maintainability perspectives. Also for consistency where /dev/urandom is not available. OK, I'll change it so they're all the same. In the future as an implementation detail we can seed the generator with data from /dev/urandom if available, iff the code/time cost is deemed worthwhile. cheers, Pádraig. p.s. discussions on random number generation tend to grow into monster threads containing little info. Fingers crossed this doesn't happen here :) _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
