Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:50:34 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev <roam@orbitel.bg> To: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: add -I ignoremask option to du(1) Message-ID: <20001214095033.D575@ringworld.oblivion.bg> In-Reply-To: <20001213210739.A87300@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@FreeBSD.org on Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 09:07:40PM -0800 References: <20001214034803.C575@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <20001213210739.A87300@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 09:07:40PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > On Thu, Dec 14, 2000 at 03:48:04AM +0200, Peter Pentchev wrote: > > Comments? Flames? "Shut-up-already"'s? :) > ... > > +.Op Fl I Ar mask > > I only ask, if you've researched this to find the prior art of which > option letter is most "compatible" for some definition of the word. > Pax(1) would use "-X" for this, and diff(1) both "-x" and "-X". Well, "-x" was what I thought of first, but it was already taken, and with a longtime Unix history, too. "-I" is what cvs(1) uses. I could make it "-i mask" and add "-I maskfile" to match diff(1) though; or would "-I mask", "-X maskfile" be more appropriate? Or drop the maskfile idea at all, and use "-X".. I was also thinking of adding something like -i or -U to specify an 'unignore' mask - names to process even if they match an -I option. diff(1) does not have this at all. cvs(1) uses "-I !mask", but this could make things hard for people used to cvs's also accepting "-I ! mask" - getopt() would choke on that. G'luck, Peter PS. Hm a look at pax(1) and its history suggests that its "-X" has been used for 'no filesystem traversal' ever since its conception, or at least importing into FreeBSD.. This sentence no verb. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001214095033.D575>