On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 17:23:50 -0400 stephen Turner <stephen.n.tur...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey Stephen, > Background first. I'm running a simple kernel, busybox, make, pcc, > musl, binutils (patched for ash) environment. Its run from ram so i > can trash the environment as many times as i care to reboot. That > being said I decided to install suckless in place allowing it to > overwrite the busybox links just for kicks. So far just sbase was > installed. > > I had to tweak the config.mk (expected i assume?) > PREFIX=/ > MANPREFIX=/usr/local/share/man (keeping with suckless default here, > removed variable) > CC=pcc > LDFLAGS= (removed -s as it was not supported) yes, it is expected to change config.mk for your environments. in 99% of the cases you don't need to change the defaults though. > It compiled and installed faster than expected but then the code was > smaller than expected too, very impressive size! Immediately i decided > to check and see if it overwrote the busybox links and it did but i > also noticed there is no color or column views? Reviewing the Readme > shows that color isn't listed as one of the removed features just fyi > unless it has a short hand from --color that i didn't know. This is because color is not part of Posix, but a GNUism. For column views, use the cols(1) utility that is shipped with sbase. There is no reason to implement that in each single utility. Just invoke ls | cols as you already found out yourself. The Unix philosophy states that you should have one tool that does one thing and does it well; in this case this is cols(1) whose only job is to columnize output. ls(1) is complex enough already, so we really don't want to worry about columnizing output as well. > I have never had ls without color or column included (i'm spoiled) and > google isn't being overly helpful at the moment. I found the cols > command and ls | cols solved that so i can just create an alias, what > about getting color? Is there a suckless solution? The suckless solution is just not to use color at all. It takes a while to get used to, but it's really not necessary. It's like syntax highlighting. > I see a few items have the -i removed, I can't say i use the > interactive mode but i assume you removed it due to redundancy and so > i'm curious how you would normally do that the suckless way. There is no compelling reason for interactive mode. rm(1) for instance is a tool and you should just use it properly. Give it the proper arguments and be done with it; write a thin wrapper script if you really want an interactive mode, but there really is no reason to have it. It's a gimmick, but maybe you can give really compelling reasons to include it. > Otherwise i haven't used it much but seems to be just as expected, a > gnu comparable cli. I need to update my scripts and then i will start > using this instead of busybox. I'm glad you like it! If you find any bugs, please report them! Cheers FRIGN -- FRIGN <d...@frign.de>