В предыдщих частях сериала "GNU Coreutils переписывают на Rust"

https://t.me/tech_b0lt_Genona/5319
https://t.me/tech_b0lt_Genona/5697
https://t.me/tech_b0lt_Genona/5812
https://t.me/tech_b0lt_Genona/6273
https://t.me/tech_b0lt_Genona/6400
https://t.me/tech_b0lt_Genona/6707

David Uhden Collado (https://uhden.dev/index.html) попытался притащить в OpenBSD uutils (Coreutils переписанный на Rust), но Тео сие отверг

https://mail-archive.com/ports%40openbsd.org/msg143892.html

David:
> 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.

Teo:
Smells like agenda.

David:
> I also think they fit quite well with OpenBSD as alternatives to GNU
> utilities, particularly because they use a permissive MIT license.

Teo:
...
Noone wants subtly different behaving binaries as part of their workflow. If someone runs the openbsd ls command as part of a pipeline that uses openbsd sed, or openbsd cut, or some other openbsd utility and it parses a non-standized output characteristic by accident, there are no people in this universe who wants to replace that ls with a different ls and get surprised by un-standardized tooling behaviour clash

David:
> This is new territory for me, since uutils is structured as a metapackage, and because it's written in Rust.

Teo:
Oh, because it is written in Rust.
Your agenda is showing.

Следующий этап обсуждений не хуже оказался

https://mail-archive.com/ports%40openbsd.org/msg143894.html

David:
> I also do not understand the hostility towards these projects.

Teo:
It looks like you are trying to convince other people to accept
your agenda and put labour into making it happen.

David:
> If the
> concern is that AI or LLM-assisted development may have been involved,
> that is a separate discussion from whether the resulting software is
> technically useful, compatible, maintainable, and suitable for ports.

Teo:
What?

David:
> LLMs can substantially reduce the amount of time required for some
> kinds of software development, including work that would previously
> have required much more manual effort. I think the sensible way to
> judge the result is by the code, tests, compatibility and maintenance
> quality rather than by assuming that the development method itself
> makes the project undesirable.

Teo:
What?

David:
> In any case, I would rather keep that discussion separate. My interest
> here is much simpler: providing additional permissively licensed
> alternatives for ports that already require GNU-compatible tooling.

Teo:
What?