Follow-up Comment #12, bug #51506 (project findutils):
> … warrants a separate ~200k binary.
I imagine that there are further build configuration possibilities to reduce
the size of the executable file.
> exec find "$@" -printf "%f\n"
Thanks for your suggestion.
Such a command can also occasi
Follow-up Comment #11, bug #51506 (project findutils):
> I suggest to consider the choice between additional variants for the program
“find”.
I don't think this marginal feature to fall back to basenames for -print
(or when no other action is specified) warrants a separate ~200k binary.
I propos
Follow-up Comment #10, bug #51506 (project findutils):
> You mean to change the behavior of the default -print action (or when
omitted)
> to strip off leading directories?
Yes.
> This would break almost all existing scripts,
Not directly.
I suggest to consider the choice between additional va
Follow-up Comment #9, bug #51506 (project findutils):
> [...] introduce a corresponding build configuration parameter ...
You mean to change the behavior of the default -print action (or when
omitted)
to strip off leading directories?
This would break almost all existing scripts, and future scrip
Follow-up Comment #8, bug #51506 (project findutils):
> ... because no one ever complained about a performance / resource issue with
the directories part not stripped off
> (because there is the "%f" option), …
* Is the software situation still different for called commands?
* How do you think ab
Follow-up Comment #7, bug #51506 (project findutils):
> How many test cases check already run time consequences for
> handling directory specifications there?
Most probably Zero ... because no one ever complained about a
performance / resource issue with the directories part not
stripped off (bec
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #51506 (project findutils):
> … a new action like e.g. -printbase makes any difference in any case
* I imagine that such a “parameter alias” could be easier to remember.
* But it would also mean that there is an additional string which would need a
corresponding check in
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #51506 (project findutils):
> So the specification of such a command line parameter would also be
> a bit too much extra data ...
I heavily doubt that abbreviating the 14 bytes of "-printf '%f\n'"
on the command line to a new action like e.g. -printbase makes _any_
diffe
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #51506 (project findutils):
>For optimization issues, people usually come with a certain, reproducible
case to point out a bottleneck.
I suggest a software adjustment where I can also imagine that you might not
interpret its impact in significant ways because a specific
