Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2026/09/20 07:01, David Uhden Collado wrote:
The main goal of the packaging is to make these implementations usable
as alternatives to the existing GNU utility ports without requiring
source changes in dependent ports.
For example, uutils-coreutils installs the same g-prefixed command names
as sysutils/coreutils, including gcat, gls, gcp, gdate, gsort, gstat,
gtail, gtimeout and the other GNU-compatible utilities. They are
symlinks to the upstream multicall binary, which is installed under
libexec/uutils.
...
Each package conflicts with its corresponding GNU implementation and
declares the GNU port as a secondary @pkgpath.
I don't think this is a usable approach for ports.
The truth is, I find these Rust reimplementations quite interesting.
Ubuntu 26.10 has already adopted uutils coreutils because the project
has reached a level of maturity and stability where it can be used
reliably. The other reimplementations are still more of a work in progress.
I also think they fit quite well with OpenBSD as alternatives to GNU
utilities, particularly because they use a permissive MIT license.
I'm not sure yet whether it's possible to install the individual
utilities as separate binaries. This is new territory for me, since
uutils is structured as a metapackage, and because it's written in Rust.
