Actually, dos2unix (the one I have, anyway) *does* do a few things that aren't so trivially done with sed. For one, it is in-place (unless told otherwise), and has --keepdate. In-place is awkward to do with sed.
It is very easy to do with sed, just pass --in-place to sed. Wow, that was a TERRIBLE example! ;-) I've used dos2unix enough to be annoyed by its lack of pervasiveness, but I don't know that I've *ever* used dirname (maybe 'basename', and only in scripts). To use your argument, dirname (and basename) is a simple hack that can be written as a trivial bash substitution. :-) Does that mean dirname should not be in coreutils? You missed the point completely. If you compare dos2unix to dirname, dos2unix has far fewer scenarios of use. ~15 years of having used Unix like systems on a daily basis, I have yet to come to a situation where I would actually need dos2unix as a seperate program, where dirname, basename, tac, head, and what not are infact useful. And I suspect that this is the same for the majority of users. What next? HTML to text, and text to HTML conversion programs in coreutils? This would probobly be more useful than dos2unix... _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
