On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 2:45 PM Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> wrote: > > On 10/05/2018 02:41 PM, enh wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 11:18 AM Rob Landley <r...@landley.net> 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? > > Yup. > > >> 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. > > The default is "/" if you just go "getconf -a".
weird. that seems far less useful than '.'. (i'm not really sure how `getconf -a` is even useful. looks like it's meant for interactive use when you don't know what a thing's called. so you do `getconf -a | grep -i uucp` or whatever.) > Hmmm, but it insists when you specify an argument: > > $ getconf FILESIZEBITS > Usage: getconf [-v specification] variable_name [pathname] > getconf -a [pathname] > $ getconf FILESIZEBITS / > 64 > > That's really stupid. (The ubuntu one, I mean.) > > > 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... > > Indeed. > > >> 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?). > > Pretty sure it uses / > > $ diff -u <(cd /; getconf -a) <(cd /proc; getconf -a) > $ diff -u <(getconf -a /) <(getconf -a /proc) | wc > 19 45 742 > > > 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.) > > I didn't. I dunno what success look like here either. (And too busy at work to > think much about it until now.) the BSD getconf seems less stupid: `getconf -a` shows you the non-path stuff, `getconf -a PATH` shows you just the path stuff. sounds reasonable? > >> Rob > > Rob _______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list Toybox@lists.landley.net http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net