Subject: Re: small hack
To: Simon Burge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Curt Sampson <email@example.com>
Date: 09/24/1998 11:02:46
On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, Simon Burge wrote:
> Don't we have a package category for nifty little utilities? This would
> seem like a good candidate for that rather than adding it directly to
> the main-line.
Actually, this is one area where I would object to a package. These
sorts of nify utilities are the building blocks for shell scripts,
and it would be really frustrating for everyone if, when a script
used this, it had to check for its existence on this particular
system and either abort or find another way of doing the job. Most
programmers I think would just find another way of doing the job
so that they don't have to dpened on it (in order to reduce
maintenence and support), at which point there's no point in having
the script anyway.
Curt Sampson <firstname.lastname@example.org> 604-257-9400 De gustibus, aut bene aut nihil.
Any opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
The most widely ported operating system in the world: http://www.netbsd.org