Hm, frustrating...
However, sometimes it may make sense to create an empty directory or
read-only file named core. A while ago, I had a fair amount of
trouble on a system consisting of less than grand hardware. The
software we were running was something commercial (no source
available), and
significantly to filling up the hard disk. As we didn't own the source
code, and there was no effective support from the manufacturer, the core
files weren't really much use. So the best thing we could do was to prevent
their creation in the first place, and this can obviously be achieved
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:22:12 you wrote:
significantly to filling up the hard disk. As we didn't own the source
code, and there was no effective support from the manufacturer, the core
files weren't really much use. So the best thing we could do was to
prevent their creation in the first
So Friday was a trifle frustrating...
Somehow things didn't work out quite right and I seem to have lost a
bunch of work...
So monday morning was spent working out what went wrong...
Aha! I was working with the Light Weight IP stack which has all
it's core functionality in a directory
On 1 March 2010 11:48, John Carter john.car...@tait.co.nz wrote:
Moral of the story. Avoid the name core for anything other than core
dumps.
And there I was thinking the moral would be to do with using CVS ;)
