Re: splitting util-linux (was: kill)

[Ian Kent <ikent@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 09:07 +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 21, 2006 at 11:45:53PM -0800, Evan Hunt wrote:
> > 
> > > As far as I can see, "look" is basically a lame grep.
> > > Is this something we really need?
> > 
> > However, you're right about it being lame.  It only searches at the
> > beginning of the line, making it useless for files that are sorted on
> > different fields, can only deal with lexical ordering, etc.
> 
>  Yes, the definition of "look" is pretty exact. Who do you think that
>  the tool should be work with any other type of files or with
>  a different ordering ? Now, it seems like right tool for right job.
> 
> > I'm fixing this, which is part of why I ended up in this conversation
> > in the first place; I want to put the improved version into miscutils.
> > 
> > > more -- still better-known than "less", sadly
> > 
> > Ah, a pet peeve of mine. :)
> > 
> > Why doesn't the 'less' package just install 'more' as a link to 'less'?
> 
>  because some distributions have the 'more' command in the root
>  filesystem (/bin) and the 'less' command in /usr/bin.

And because some people remember that stuff like this was done because
"/usr" may have been on a separate partition and this was the place to
put binaries that depended on a larger number of libraries, usually also
in "/usr/lib". Then in recovery situations such as single user mode only
"/" would be mounted. Same story with "/bin/sh" of course.

Those days may be behind us but I still think we should be able to boot
a minimal root filesystem for recovery, but perhaps I'm just old
fashioned.

>  But yes, I agree that the 'more' should be die in some future release.
> 
>     Karel
>