From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 21:47:02 +0100 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] Writing forward compatible applications using /proc Message-ID: <20010813214702.A1249@btconnect.com> References: <20010811235718.A20414@linux.com> <20010812200701.A657@btconnect.com> <20010812221650.A6589@vestdata.no> <20010813161301.B6466@uk.sistina.com> <3B782E02.B5DB2FC8@tls.msk.ru> <20010813214943.A19522@cistron.nl> <20010813221837.A25630@dragon.blacknet.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010813221837.A25630@dragon.blacknet.de>; from bock@blacknet.de on Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 10:18:37PM +0200 From: Joe Thornber Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@sistina.com On Mon, Aug 13, 2001 at 10:18:37PM +0200, Goetz Bock wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 13 '01 at 21:49, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > Compare with: wow! instead of a few simple modular applications we > > now get a single one which tries to do everything. I'm not convinced > > this is a step forward, the UNIX philosophy of having lots of small > > single-purpose tools is a good one. > (I did not check the cvs or how it is done) > but if they did it right, they did it the same way busybox works: > independent code file that could work as independent executables (if > wrapped with some glue logic) but which work from one main executeable. > While it keeps the mantainability of lots of small tools, it is actually > better to manage for the user/admin (just one file), and the executable > might even be smaller (better for bootdisks or simmilar low diskspace > situations) Exactly. experimental wc -l tools/*.[hc] 9441 beta8 wc -l tools/*.[hc] 13566 and there's a lot left to do. - Joe