On Tuesday 24 January 2006 02:43, John Vandenberg wrote: > On 1/24/06, Andreas Gruenbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday 23 January 2006 22:23, Dean Roehrich wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 09:44:08PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > > > I still need to fix ftw by either using nftw or something else; then > > > > we should be ready for 0.43. > > > > > > The "something else" that I'm using today is sun-backup-files-2.diff > > > from http://zeroj.hda0.net/quilt-0.43-patches-v5/ > > > > > > This appears to be happy on Solaris and linux. I did have one question > > > about it, though. Perhaps the addition of the 'rm -rf' in push.in > > > should be joined with the preceding backup-files with an &&, as was > > > done in pop.in? > > > > It probably should, but I'd really prefer fixing backup-files instead. It > > does matter how many programs are forked/exec'd at this place, and it's > > just unclean for backup-files to leave around trash that it created > > before. > > In order to get some idea of how expensive a a bash only > implementation would be, I have roughly drafted up a patch that > implements backup-files -r. > > http://zeroj.hda0.net/quilt-0.43-patches-v5/sh-restore-2.diff > > There are two exec's per patch, and for push, one exec per file; for pop, > two.
And a lot of slow shell code. Do you have cpio on all systems? Then files can maybe removed with "find -size 0 | xargs -r rm -f" and restored with cpio pass-through? But that's probably just as bad. > While this is probably too expensive for linux kernel development, it > certainly wouldn't affect me with only a few small patches per series. > Could we introduce a bash only implementation for platforms without > nftw? I would still prefer to fix backup-files a hundred times. Andreas _______________________________________________ Quilt-dev mailing list Quilt-dev@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/quilt-dev
