Karel Zak wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:27:57PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I was thinking the new fallocate util would have the
same options as the existing truncate util.
I.E. -n or -o would not be needed or supportable in all situations.
If you think that users would need those, then I
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:27:57PM +0100, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I was thinking the new fallocate util would have the
same options as the existing truncate util.
I.E. -n or -o would not be needed or supportable in all situations.
If you think that users would need those, then I suggest
adding
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Pádraig Brady wrote:
Eric Sandeen wrote:
TBH I think truncate --allocate sounds a little odd. (Now that I
think back, I think I mentioned this before). truncate(1) and
truncate(2) specifically refer to i_size, which to fs people like me,
has nothing to do with the
Pádraig Brady wrote:
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Pádraig Brady wrote:
Eric Sandeen wrote:
TBH I think truncate --allocate sounds a little odd. (Now that I
think back, I think I mentioned this before). truncate(1) and
truncate(2) specifically refer to i_size, which to fs people like me,
has
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Pádraig Brady schrieb:
I don't see a problem in extending the meaning of the truncate command.
Now truncate isn't the best name for the command but that name
already existed in BSD and so I thought it best to align with that.
So what about also having an fallocate
Hello,
Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com writes:
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Pádraig Brady schrieb:
I don't see a problem in extending the meaning of the truncate command.
Now truncate isn't the best name for the command but that name
already existed in BSD and so I thought it best to align with
Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
Hello,
Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com writes:
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
...
Why not make it, in the best Unix tradition, a single
executable whose action depends on the name it is run as?
Hmm. Good idea.
There is precedent for that already in coreutils.
What
Pádraig Brady schrieb:
I don't see a problem in extending the meaning of the truncate command.
Now truncate isn't the best name for the command but that name
already existed in BSD and so I thought it best to align with that.
So what about also having an fallocate command in coreutils?
Well
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Why not make it, in the best Unix tradition, a single
executable whose action depends on the name it is run as?
That can cause problems in various cases. So much so that it was
written into the GNU Coding Standards to be avoided:
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Giuseppe Scrivano wrote:
Hello,
Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com writes:
Tilman Schmidt wrote:
...
Why not make it, in the best Unix tradition, a single
executable whose action depends on the name it is run as?
Hmm. Good idea.
There is precedent for that already
10 matches
Mail list logo