Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 09:37:19 -0600 (MDT)
From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>
To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
Cc: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com>, Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: install on {Net,Open}BSD vs install on FreeBSD
Message-ID: <199609241537.JAA06948@rocky.mt.sri.com>
In-Reply-To: <199609241530.JAA06226@rover.village.org>
References: <199609241512.JAA06843@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199609230506.PAA05354@godzilla.zeta.org.au> <199609241441.IAA05913@rover.village.org> <199609241530.JAA06226@rover.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Why is there so much resistance to 10 lines of code already integrated > and tested in NetBSD and OpenBSD? Why is gets() considered to be a 'bad thing'? Because it encourages bad programming practices when a better solution already exists. Why is 'install -d' considered to be a 'bad thing'? Because it encourage bad installation practices when a better installation method exists. Since the FreeBSD source tree has no need for it (we have a good solution), and the functionality is available for folks that need it in our 'provided' sources (GNU-install), then there is no need to 'pollute' our tree with software that encourages bad practice. > Sorry to sound a little frustrated, but the grabbing the code from > NetBSD, putting it into FreeBSD's install and testing it took less > time than I've spent writing email on this topic. And the code itself is a kludge that should have been implemented using the existing tools. That's the 'Unix Way'. Build on the existing tools instead of making every tool do the same thing as another tool, until all tools essentially do the same thing. KISS! Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609241537.JAA06948>