On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 12:41 PM enh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 11:18 AM Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 10/02/2018 06:21 PM, enh wrote: > > > (in case it's not obvious, this is on top of my other getconf patch > > > from earlier today.) > > > > Applied, but: > > forgot to push? > > > 1) getconf -l only outputting symbol names was intentional, it's that whole > > "unix way" Mike Gancarz wrote a loely book about. Output that's easily tool > > processable, so you can do "for i in $(getconf)" for example. (Toybox > > produces > > just the command names for the same reason.) I understand your motivation > > for > > changing that, but it makes me wince. > > my motivation was "how else do we explain which ones are pathconf?", which > you need to know because all the others require 0 args, but pathconf requires > 1 arg. it didn't seem reasonable to do that in --help, and although i > considered something like adding '*' to the pathconf ones, that breaks the > traditional unix style that you were going for but without actually fixing my > problem...
actually, the other reason why i did what i did was: it points you at the right documentation for each one. because no documentation for getconf(1) itself is likely to be very helpful. > > 2) I missed that upstream has the "-a" option which lists everything, which > > is > > why they don't have a -l. (I don't think ubuntu 14.04 had this, but my test > > system died.) We should probably implement that, I might take a stab this > > weekend. > > not _everything_ --- just the ones that are defined (and i'm guessing it uses > '.' for the pathconf ones?). > > but i can do that while you do something more useful :-) i'll fix the > "undefined" behavior too, since i found one caller that was expecting it... > (but i'll wait for you to push first, in case you'd made additional changes.) > > > Rob _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
