Received: from spf5.us4.outblaze.com (spf5.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.27]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9J5QEh5015245 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 05:26:14 GMT Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [199.232.76.165]) by spf5.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49EAB76F40 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 05:26:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CJmd1-0007fT-N3 for migo@homemail.com; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:33:47 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CJmcU-0007bl-OL for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:33:14 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.33) id 1CJmcT-0007bM-QY for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:33:14 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CJmcT-0007bA-Ms for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:33:13 -0400 Received: from [204.152.189.135] (helo=kechara.flame.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.34) id 1CJmV2-0004zs-7O for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 01:25:32 -0400 Received: (qmail 16877 invoked by uid 323); 19 Oct 2004 05:25:30 -0000 To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org Mail-Followup-To: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: File naming conventions References: <1098074588.29545.40.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com> <1098092294.5219.8.camel@johannes> <20041018181822.GD9196@puritan.pcp.ath.cx> <8D7869BC-213A-11D9-A63A-000393CFE6B8@spy.net> <20041019000526.GB11283@puritan.pcp.ath.cx> <1098157808.19575.79.camel@whiskas.cashpoolcomps.com> <05135B4C-2188-11D9-A882-000A957659CC@spy.net> From: Matthew Dempsky Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:26:23 -0500 In-Reply-To: <05135B4C-2188-11D9-A882-000A957659CC@spy.net> (Dustin Sallings's message of "Mon, 18 Oct 2004 21:33:26 -0700") Message-ID: <87pt3fnurk.fsf@flame.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-BeenThere: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: a discussion list for all things arch-ish List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Status: RO Content-Length: 1155 Lines: 32 Dustin Sallings writes: > The problem, though, is that this seems to work against the > UNIX philosophy. Why should tla re-implement find? Because inventory is a critical performance bottle neck of arch. Inventory was the first part of arch to be rewritten in C because of exactly that. Previously it had been a huge find script. > IMO, it'd be much > better off re-implementing diff, patch, and tar first to reduce the > number of external dependencies (as I haven't used tla on a system yet > that didn't require me to install gnu or at least newer versions of > these tools). What does re-implementing those utilities buy us? If building those packages is so difficult on your system, perhaps you should either go bug their respective maintainers or get an easier to manage system. > Perhaps it'd make more sense to make a find that gets > along with tla better? Sure. Or make inventory usable on its own. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/