Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > While there has been some conversation, and it seems like folks are > generally in favor of this proposal, I've not seen any actual +1s from > any voting ARC members. Can I hear one please?
Seems reasonable to me as specified, but see below. > Also, on the question of "parseable" pfiles output, I like the idea, but > I think the answer is "not this case". As has been pointed out > already, I don't think the changes described for this case make the > output any more ambiguous than they already are. Agreed not this case, but I think the proposal of putting offset: after the file name does actually make it harder to parse the existing output of pfiles(1), since today you can assume that the filename is on a line of its own. All the other non filename fields in the pfiles(1) output are on a different line to the filename. So I'd highly recommend that offset go on the same line as mode: or on its own line. If that is done then an offset of 0 should be printed for things that are seekable. -- Darren J Moffat
