[Toybox] [PATCH] Support diff --no-dereference

[Rob Landley]

FYI I hadn't sent this old reply because I instead just applied the patch as-is
after _two_ timeout pokes, but if it _still_ doesn't quite work, for the record
my initial objections were...

On 8/26/24 16:30, enh wrote:
> ...but ignoring the bikeshed of "should we do something about all the
> _other_ readlink callers" --- ping on this specific patch :-)

Sorry, fell a bit behind. Partly burnout, partly I started working with
the j-core guys again and got a bit distracted (flew to Canada a couple
weeks back, flew to japan wednesday). And I need to move my email to the
new laptop (I'm typing this in vi so I can scp it to my website so I
can wget it on the other machine to send it), but gmail is about to stop:


https://www.osnews.com/story/138392/google-to-restricts-access-to-imap-smtp-pop-to-oauth-this-year/

So I need to point my domain's mx record to dreamhost and have the new
machine fetch mail from there instead, and I've been a bit reluctant to
pull the trigger on that. (I don't THINK fiddling with my domain's mx record
is going to break the mailing list? It's their web GUI doing it. They have
support people... It's just, big red button.)

I saw this patch when it came in (web archive, lovely thing) but didn't
apply it immediately because:

1) Adding a --longopt without a corresponding short option sets my
teeth on edge. (It's not unix.) In this case, cp -P and chgrp -P says
not to follow symlinks, and diff isn't currently using -P, so I might do
that.

2) It added a new function to lib/ that only has a single user. I tend
to add it to just the command and move it into lib/ when there's a second
user. (It's not re-use when it's just use, even this is only calling
the function once so having a wrapper function even inline in diff.c
isn't a win yet.)

3) Then there was the readlink0() vs xreadlink() thread in the list giving me an
excuse to delay...

4) But the real blocker is I did most of a rewrite of diff but shelved it amidst
a wave of indignation and was pretty much ignoring the one in pending as
"something I really want to throw out but people get mad". If it wasn't for this
patch touching lib and setting API precedent I'd happily apply arbitrary crap to
that one because I don't care. (Otherwise I'd have various style cleanups and
think 96 lines was a bit much for two readlinks a strcmp and a print.)

The tests are nice though. :)

Sigh, I'll try to get it in this weekend...

Rob