Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:53:55 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented Message-ID: <20080223155355.3f80b77f@bhuda.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20080223.120546.74701383.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <20080223123556.3eee709d@bhuda.mired.org> <20080223.110047.-397883947.imp@bsdimp.com> <20080223131937.182373b2@bhuda.mired.org> <20080223.120546.74701383.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 12:05:46 -0700 (MST) Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> From: Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org>
> > On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:00:47 -0700 (MST) "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In message: <20080223123556.3eee709d@bhuda.mired.org>
> > > Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> writes:
> > > : On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 00:03:08 -0700 (MST) "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> > > :
> > > : > Sorry to be lame and follow up to my original email, but Ruslan was
> > > : > way too quick to give me feedback :-)
> > > : >
> > > : > I also did a few more of the really easy ones, and added a list of
> > > : > ones that we haven't implemented yet.
> > > : >
> > > : > Comments?
> > > :
> > > : How about a question: why are you turning the FreeBSD find into the
> > > : GNU find? The changes in the first patch looked like they added real
> > > : functionality that wasn't available in other tools. These seem to be
> > > : gratuitous changes to make things compatible with GNU.
> > >
> > > The changes aren't gratuitous. They are well thought out to ensure
> > > maximum compatibility.
> >
> > That they add no new functionality, but only exist to make things
> > compatible with GNU are what make them gratuitous to me.
> It adds functionality. That doesn't make it gratuitous. One might
> just as well call 'POSIX' compatibility gratuitous. Like it or not,
> the GNU utilities represent a de-facto standard that we must conform
> to.
POSIX is a well-defined standard, endorsed by a large number of
companies. GNU's just a bag of programs which only have one
commonality as far as I can tell: the software license. There's
another de-facto standard from a company in Redmond, that's *much*
more popular than GNU, and probably more consistent. If FreeBSD is
going to conform to implementations instead of standards, I'd rather
it conform to that one than GNU.
> > > It is yet another barrier to entry for people converting from Linux to
> > > FreeBSD. There's lots of useful scripts that have been written for
> > > the embedded world that, sadly, assume more functionality in our tools
> > > than are present. They don't always do nice autoconf things to find
> > > the right tool to use. The trivial differences between gnu find and
> > > our find serve no real purpose.
> >
> > The problem with this argument is that there are no limits on it,
> > other than the developers definition of "trivial". OS X has already
> > carried this argument to the point that they've replaced /bin/sh with
> > bash.
>
> Don't be rediculous. I added 1k of extra space to an existing
> utility. That was part of the calculous in my making the changes I
> did.
What's ridiculous? That the only limit is the developers definition of
"trivial"? Care to provide another one? That OS X turned /bin/sh into
bash? I'd agree that that's ridiculous, except it's a fact. That they
did it to make OS X more compatible with Linux? Would you like me to
try and dig up the mail from jkh (I'm pretty sure it was him) that
says that's why they did it?
> Or course, we may need to adopt features from bash into our /bin/sh as
> time marches forward.
>
> This is no different from what the project has always done. There's
> nothing new that I've done. Reviewing all the utilities one will find
> where people have added features or enhanced compatibility with other
> gnu tools.
I believe you. If you're going to add a feature, accessing it the same
way as GNU does makes some sense (providing GNU's not completely
broken, anyway). And I'm sure there are cases where things were
tweaked just to make them more compatible, because there's constant
pressure to do so, even if the changes in question add nothing but
bloat to the system.
> In short, I'm continuig the long tradition that we've done as FreeBSD
> and that BSD and other Unix vendors did before us: compatibility with
> other implementations.
I suspect your definition of "long tradition" is a lot shorter than
mine. That's they only way I can make that statement make sense - at
least the part about BSD and other Unix vendors.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080223155355.3f80b77f>