Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Jan 2013 01:41 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Thread beginning with comment 548064
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: not all these changes are strictly necessary
by Slambert666 on Thu 10th Jan 2013 04:17
in reply to "not all these changes are strictly necessary"
RE: not all these changes are strictly necessary
by Drumhellar on Thu 10th Jan 2013 04:24
in reply to "not all these changes are strictly necessary"
If you had read the article, you'd know that a big source of the problem is pointless changes, especially in build scripts, where things like GNU sed is required, even though the same thing could very easily be done with any sed in a widely-compatible way.
It is getting worse, as it seems (in the interviewee's view) that newer POSIX standards just seem to be rubber stamping in GNU tool chain features into the standard, with little or no consideration of non-GNU tool chains, even if they're doing really cool, innovative stuff.
RE[2]: not all these changes are strictly necessary
by kwan_e on Thu 10th Jan 2013 05:01
in reply to "RE: not all these changes are strictly necessary"
If you had read the article, you'd know that a big source of the problem is pointless changes, especially in build scripts, where things like GNU sed is required, even though the same thing could very easily be done with any sed in a widely-compatible way.
It is getting worse, as it seems (in the interviewee's view) that newer POSIX standards just seem to be rubber stamping in GNU tool chain features into the standard, with little or no consideration of non-GNU tool chains, even if they're doing really cool, innovative stuff.
It is getting worse, as it seems (in the interviewee's view) that newer POSIX standards just seem to be rubber stamping in GNU tool chain features into the standard, with little or no consideration of non-GNU tool chains, even if they're doing really cool, innovative stuff.
You both miss my point.
Yes, it makes it harder to port those programs to OpenBSD. But they're not OpenBSD's core environment. And the BSDers have a problem with GPL software (as mentioned in the article, which I have not only read, but comprehended) that means they'll have to write their own version anyway.
RE[2]: not all these changes are strictly necessary
by cyrilleberger on Thu 10th Jan 2013 08:35
in reply to "RE: not all these changes are strictly necessary"
GNU sed is required, even though the same thing could very easily be done with any sed in a widely-compatible way.
Quoting the article:
"and no, gsed -i is not a valid excuse. Come on, you need half a line of shell script to do the equivalent of gsed -i"
Sure adding half a line of shell script (I assume 40 characters, right?) is "easy", but it cluters, and if you have to do it every time it becomes a pain. And people don't use the GNU extension because they don't bother to check, but because they are damn convenient.
Personnaly at work, I mainly use a Linux box, and I also have from time to time to use a Solaris box, and it is just a pain in the ass to have to write things like "find . | xargs grep 'somestring'" instead of just "grep -r 'somestring'" and so on. In the end I just end up using the GNU tools on Solaris as well.
GNU extensions were not created to make the system incompatible, they were created for convenience. And I don't see why it should be up to upstream to spend extra work on supporting other platform.
RE: not all these changes are strictly necessary
by Soulbender on Thu 10th Jan 2013 07:22
in reply to "not all these changes are strictly necessary"
RE[2]: not all these changes are strictly necessary
by kwan_e on Thu 10th Jan 2013 07:38
in reply to "RE: not all these changes are strictly necessary"
RE[2]: not all these changes are strictly necessary
by Phucked on Thu 10th Jan 2013 08:56
in reply to "RE: not all these changes are strictly necessary"
RE: not all these changes are strictly necessary
by lucas_maximus on Thu 10th Jan 2013 08:11
in reply to "not all these changes are strictly necessary"




Member since:
2007-02-18
If not all the changes are strictly necessary, then why should it effect OpenBSD or BSD in general? The examples mentioned are desktop environment type stuff, which is not exactly something OpenBSD needs to support.
Wouldn't OpenBSD do better by focusing on the essentials that it does better than Linux?