find -lname and -ilname implemented

[Peter Jeremy]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 07:27:30AM +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote:
>What I wasn't thrilled about, and hoped to trigger a discussion of, was the 
>apparent suggestion that FreeBSD must be Linux-compatible at all costs 
>because weight of numbers makes Linux and GNU a de-facto standard.

Whilst I agree that people have stated that GNU/Linux is a de-facto
standard, I don't believe that "FreeBSD must be Linux-compatible at
all costs" is a logical consequence of this and don't believe anyone
implying it in this thread.  There _is_ a fine line between adding
functionality because it's easy to do/provides useful functionality/
makes it easier to port code and turning FreeBSD into a BSD-licensed
Linux.  I would suggest that a general discussion of this boundary
belongs in a distinct thread.

>I do think that where we are having problems because Linux developers are 
>stuck in their bubble and don't understand the concept of portability,

This is aided and abetted by the GNU embrace-and-extend philosophy.

>hope) - because there will always be some differences: and after all, it was 
>the GNU project that came up with autoconf, wasn't it?

GNU autoconf may have an admirable objective but it fails dismally as
a tool for assisting in the creation of portable software.  Based on
my recent experiences with a variety of common autoconf FOSS
applications, I'd go so far as to say that it impedes portability.

-- 
Peter Jeremy
Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement
an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/attachments/20080226/eead711a/attachment-0001.pgp