Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 14:27:50 +1000 From: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org> To: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru> Cc: Garance A Drosehn <gad@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/patch - Imported sources Message-ID: <20040802042750.GA24962@cat.robbins.dropbear.id.au> In-Reply-To: <20040802034509.GB81089@regency.nsu.ru> References: <200408012045.i71KjtFX087582@repoman.freebsd.org> <20040802034509.GB81089@regency.nsu.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 10:45:09AM +0700, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 01, 2004 at 08:45:55PM +0000, Garance A Drosehn wrote:
> > gad 2004-08-01 20:45:55 UTC
> >
> > FreeBSD src repository
> >
> > src/usr.bin/patch - Imported sources
> > Update of /home/ncvs/src/usr.bin/patch
> > In directory repoman.freebsd.org:/tmp/cvs-serv87568
> >
> > Log Message:
> > Import of a BSD-licensed version of `patch', which will eventually
> > replace the version we currently have in src/gnu/usr.bin/patch/.
> > Among other things, this version includes a --posix option for strict
> > POSIX conformance.
> >
> > This version is the current source from OpenBSD as of today. It is
> > their 3.5-release, plus a few updates to patch.c and pch.c that they
> > made about three weeks ago.
>
> May I ask why you preferred OpenBSD's version over NetBSD's? It was
> shown in the past that OpenBSD's way of doing thing is a bit rough on
> the edges sometimes (humanize_number(3) vs. fmt_scaled(3) and
> scan_scaled(3), ftw(3) and nftw(3), etc).
Actually, OpenBSD's ftw()/nftw() implementation is better than the one
we recently imported, in terms of both style and functionality; I wish we'd
gone with it instead. What we have in -CURRENT at the moment is incredibly
buggy for such a simple function. The droll, inane comments ("Because
errno is our friend") and style violations only make things worse.
Tim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040802042750.GA24962>