cvs commit: src/usr.bin/patch - Imported sources
das at FreeBSD.ORG
Wed Aug 4 14:05:01 PDT 2004
On Mon, Aug 02, 2004, Tim Robbins wrote:
> 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.
I agree about the style. What's wrong with the functionality?
I have no objection to switching to Todd's (much cleaner) [n]ftw()
implementation, although I'm not aware of any non-stylistic
problems with the current code.
More information about the cvs-src