Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2026/09/20 07:01, David Uhden Collado wrote: >> The main goal of the packaging is to make these implementations usable >> as alternatives to the existing GNU utility ports without requiring >> source changes in dependent ports. >> >> For example, uutils-coreutils installs the same g-prefixed command names >> as sysutils/coreutils, including gcat, gls, gcp, gdate, gsort, gstat, >> gtail, gtimeout and the other GNU-compatible utilities. They are >> symlinks to the upstream multicall binary, which is installed under >> libexec/uutils. > ... >> Each package conflicts with its corresponding GNU implementation and >> declares the GNU port as a secondary @pkgpath. > > I don't think this is a usable approach for ports. The truth is, I find these Rust reimplementations quite interesting. Ubuntu 26.10 has already adopted uutils coreutils because the project has reached a level of maturity and stability where it can be used reliably. The other reimplementations are still more of a work in progress. I also think they fit quite well with OpenBSD as alternatives to GNU utilities, particularly because they use a permissive MIT license. I'm not sure yet whether it's possible to install the individual utilities as separate binaries. This is new territory for me, since uutils is structured as a metapackage, and because it's written in Rust.
No comments:
Post a Comment