svn commit: r326554 - in head: . usr.bin/sponge usr.bin/sponge/tests usr.bin/tee

[Rodney W. Grimes]

[ Charset windows-1252 unsupported, converting... ]
> 
> On 05/12/2017 11:29, Cy Schubert wrote:
> > Why not update sed to create the backup file only if the suffix is 
> > given to -i, like gnu sed does.
> >
> 
> No, no .. there have been several failed attempts at that that cause 
> nasty side effects.
> It is also a rather non-standardish thing to do.

Yet we are okay with having sponge(1) and its nasty side effects?

Someone please just ask for revision on this, and also make sure
the top level .arclint file that got a bogus add of /test/ during
the commit?

The argument that Linux does this, and that this is a top answer
in google do not hold water for me.  Linux does lots of things,
many are novieces solving novice problems cause they are not
skilled.   sponge(1), imho, as Devin points out is just not
needed to solve this problem and has its own set of issues.

The COST so far of this small amount of code on developers, again,
IMHO, already far out weights any benifit of having it in base.



> Pedro.
> 
> > ---
> > Sent using a tiny phone keyboard.
> > Apologies for any typos and autocorrect.
> > This old phone only supports top post. Apologies.
> >
> > Cy Schubert
> > <Cy.Schubert at cschubert.com> or <cy at freebsd.org>
> > The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few.
> > ---
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Devin Teske
> > Sent: 05/12/2017 07:35
> > To: Hans Petter Selasky
> > Cc: rgrimes at freebsd.org; cem at freebsd.org; Eitan Adler; src-committers; 
> > svn-src-all at freebsd.org; svn-src-head at freebsd.org
> > Subject: Re: svn commit: r326554 - in head: . usr.bin/sponge 
> > usr.bin/sponge/tests usr.bin/tee
> >
> >
> > > On Dec 5, 2017, at 5:00 AM, Hans Petter Selasky <hps at selasky.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 12/05/17 13:58, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > >> Further more, why does freebsd need this in base?
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I think this is useful. It could replace the "-i " (intermediate) 
> > option for "sed" for example. It avoids creating temporary files when 
> > filtering files, right?
> > >
> > > --HPS
> > >
> >
> > Wth is wrong with:
> >
> > data=$( sed -e '...' somefile ) &&
> > ????????????????????? echo "$data" > somefile
> >
> > or
> >
> > set -e
> > data=...
> > echo "$data" > ...
> >
> > or
> >
> > exec 3<<EOF
> > $( ... )
> > EOF
> > cat > ... <&3
> >
> > or
> >
> > (I digress)
> >
> > Infinite variations, but the gist is that sponge looks to be trying to 
> > help sh(1)/similar when help is unneeded.
> >
> > Why buffer data into memory via fork-exec-pipe to sponge when you can 
> > buffer to native namespace without pipe to sponge?
> >
> > Am I missing something? Why do we need sponge(1)?
> > -- 
> > Devin
> >
> 

-- 
Rod Grimes                                                 rgrimes at freebsd.org