[request-sponsor] 6416837 /usr/ucb/ls needs /bin/ls enhancements

2006-04-25 Thread Peter Tribble
I would like a sponsor for 6416837 (see also 6231493).

I'm not expecting a great rush based on the response
to my other ucb fixes...

In this case I would also appreciate advice from a sponsor
as to the approach to take before I get in too deep.

I can imagine 3 approaches:

1. Cut-n-paste the missing code from /bin/ls into the
/usr/ucb/ls source. Advantages: it's easy, retains current
behaviour, and I've done it once already. Disadvantages: it
doesn't do anything to make future synchronization easier.

2. Replace /usr/ucb/ls by the /bin/ls source and modify
that to get the BSD behaviour back. Advantages: cleaner
to do, makes patching future changes easy, we pick up
other fixes that have been made to ls for free.
Disadvantages: needs more testing to ensure that old
behaviour is preserved.

3. Generate /usr/ucb/ls from the /bin/ls source using
#ifdef, rather like the xpg4 variant is created.
Advantages: only one codebase, future merges are trivial.
Disadvantages: as 2, and it involves messing with the
/bin/ls source and could be very complex to successfully
generate 3 binaries from a single source.

-- 
-Peter Tribble
L.I.S., University of Hertfordshire - http://www.herts.ac.uk/
http://www.petertribble.co.uk/ - http://ptribble.blogspot.com/





[request-sponsor] 6416837 /usr/ucb/ls needs /bin/ls enhancements

2006-04-25 Thread Darren J Moffat
Since this changes the interface of /usr/ucb/ls it will need ARC review, 
I strongly recommend taking that path before worrying about the 
implementation.

In general I'm not sure why anyone would want to change the behaviour of 
/usr/ucb/* they are legacy and intended to be frozen in time - in my 
opinion anyway.

If you do get ARC approval to make these interface changes to 
/usr/ucb/ls then I'd highly recommend option 3 on your list.  While it 
will be complex to setup it does ensure that there is only one 
implementation of the complex functionality such as ACL setting and output.

Out of curiosity why do you use /usr/ucb/ls rather than /usr/bin/ls or 
/usr/xpg?/ls ?

--
Darren J Moffat