From owner-freebsd-bugs Thu Jul 6 4:13:26 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from axl.ops.uunet.co.za (axl.ops.uunet.co.za [196.31.2.163]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8013C37C26B for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2000 04:13:22 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sheldonh@axl.ops.uunet.co.za) Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.ops.uunet.co.za) by axl.ops.uunet.co.za with local-esmtp (Exim 3.15 #1) id 13A9aZ-0004XY-00; Thu, 06 Jul 2000 13:13:03 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: Paul Herman Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bin/19635: add -c for grand total to df(1), like du(1) does In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 06 Jul 2000 00:30:02 MST." <200007060730.AAA81280@freefall.freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 13:13:03 +0200 Message-ID: <17455.962881983@axl.ops.uunet.co.za> Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 00:30:02 MST, Paul Herman wrote: > I'm all for adding options to get features you can't otherwise get > (even *IF* the use of "total" is debatable), but c'mon, this is an awk > one-liner. > > I would agree with Sheldon as well. Let this one go. Just by the way, Bill Fumerola convinced me that an about-face on this one may be in order. His point was that df(1) isn't _only_ used to detect shortages, but can also be used for usage reports. Whether or not the option is justified is still unclear to me, but the point is that there's enough doubt for me to feel that I should retract my objection, for whatever it was worth. :-) Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message