On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 03:48:26PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:24 PM, Landry Breuil <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 02:28:13PM +0200, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: > >> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 10:55 AM, Anthony J. Bentley <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > Attached is one. It will need to be updated to use the next tag once > >> > it's released. > >> > >> Looks good to me. Indeed I don't like this manually carrying files > >> from the next release in ${FILES}, but that problem goes away entirely > >> when I do actually tag that next release. > >> > >> I've also moved all the usages of install's -v switch in the Makefile > > > > How about only using standard options instead ? > > Those gnuisms all around are awkward... > > FreeBSD and Darwin seem to support it, so I don't think it's a mere > GNUism. Other OpenBSD tools, such as mv(1) and cp(1) have -v, > presumably since it's useful, but it looks like it was forgotten about > in install(1). Patch for 6.4 perhaps? >
I wouldnt count on it, since generally openbsd is wary of adding unecessary options, adding -v to mv and cp lead to quite a bit of bikeshedding, and mv -P was recently strongly turned down. Imo, don't expect it in a near future, but who knows, one can still send a patch. In the meantime, cosmetic stuff like displaying what install does can be done outside install in a portable way...
