From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:45886 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965157AbWLVMcd (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Dec 2006 07:32:33 -0500 Subject: Re: splitting util-linux (was: kill) From: Ian Kent To: Karel Zak Cc: Evan Hunt , Albert Cahalan , Bryan Henderson , ams@gnu.org, P@draigbrady.com, util-linux-ng@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20061222080721.GS5971@petra.dvoda.cz> References: <20061220085706.GH5971@petra.dvoda.cz> <45890A78.1030105@draigBrady.com> <20061220104547.GJ5971@petra.dvoda.cz> <20061220214503.0BB4744007@Psilocybe.Update.UU.SE> <20061220235519.GN5971@petra.dvoda.cz> <20061221041033.GB13134@armory.com> <80765.bryanh@giraffe-data.com> <20061221215312.GP5971@petra.dvoda.cz> <787b0d920612212212s1ca3179jf037fc71f3f28498@mail.gmail.com> <20061222074553.GA18589@armory.com> <20061222080721.GS5971@petra.dvoda.cz> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 21:32:28 +0900 Message-Id: <1166790748.4348.7.camel@raven.themaw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: util-linux-ng-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 >