On 2008-02-23 16:48, "M. Warner Losh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Jonathan McKeown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > : Yes, where it makes sense. I'm not at all convinced that this change makes > as > : much sense as you obviously think it does - especially given that it > doesn't > : add previously unavailable functionality, and that we have a ports system > : which includes a patch stage for dealing with this sort of gratuitous > : non-portability in ported applications. > > The change absolutely makes sense, and so far none of the arguments > against it are really worth the time to respond to. I'm using > packages not in the ports system. Frankly, the more gratuitous > differences with the gnu tools we have, the harder the sell will be > for companies wanting to replace their Linux systems with FreeBSD > ones. The changes I made were absolutely trivial in the scheme of > things. > > This knee-jerk reaction against gnu find functionality baffles me. > The changes are trivial and make FreeBSD more compatible. It is such > an obvious no-brainer that I frankly didn't expect anybody to bat an > eye.
So should I expect similar knee-jerk reactions to the just committed `finger compatibility' option to implement du -l for hardlinks? I think there *is* value in making things `less hard' for the user who migrates from Linux, as long as the cost of implementing the compatibility `shims' is not humongous. I'm completely baffled by the reactions to the recent find changes :/ _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
