On 11/09/2016 12:44 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote: > and even more strange: when 'missing_file' then appears > later, tail doesn't terminate when both files are removed:
oops, forget about this: we're following by descriptor, and
tail can not know if the file is still opened by other processes.
Sorry, ... time to go to bed.
So your conclusion seems correct: tail shouldn't re-try to
open("missing_file") in the -f case.
Have a nice day,
Berny
