On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:01 AM, Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How does this compare with `zrun` from moreutils? > Would it be more appropriate to merge zargs into moreutils?
Hi Pádraig, Yes, it looks like zrun attempts to perform a similar task. >From a quick peek I notice a few things: 1. It checks file extensions, rather than `magic' bytes. I think in Perl there is a File::Type module that might help here. 2. It opens temporary files instead of FIFOs. This is a potential storage issue. It also means that zrun waits for all decompression to complete before invoking its COMMAND. 3. It opens files before forking, so is potentially rlimited beyond what the child could handle. 4. It doesn't appear to clean up temporary files if killed with a signal. 5. It doesn't support false-positives (eg: `file.gz' that's not actually compressed). 6. It doesn't support the --files0-from=F calling convention. The major reason I'd prefer to submit this tool here is that I hope to make it as robust as possible. The coreutils package is attended to by world-class developers. Any tool that has undergone the scrutiny of the subscribers to this list is likely to come out better as a result, even if it's ultimately rejected -- though I hope it's not ;). Thanks, Bo _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
