Klaus Schmidinger schrieb:
> On 15.04.2009 08:24, Steffen Barszus wrote:
>> ...On the other hand i think what vdr does is a bad idea
>> and unnecessary. period.
>>> Still I support the opinion that vdr should not silently delete files it 
>>> does 
>>> not know.
>> vdr is not deleting files it does not know. Its only deleting empty 
>> directories in its video directories.
> >From the VDR/INSTALL file:
>   Note that you should not copy any non-VDR files into the /videoX 
> directories,
>   since this might cause a lot of unnecessary disk access when VDR cleans up 
> those
>   directories and there is a large number of files and/or subdirectories in
>   there.
> The video directory is VDR's own space, there shall be nothing else
> in there. If the user puts anything non-VDR related into it (even by
> mistake), it's their fault.
> Klaus
I know that and what i did - and this might not be suggested (i'm mostly 
happy user since 7 years now). My question was: Why ?

It should not be necessary for vdr to check at all second (or third) 
harddisk. Going into directory hierarchy at disk one should be good enough.
I could understand if vdr would blend into one structure 
directories/files on all harddisk without the symlinking - but fixing 
things like that needs to be done manually. So why not drop this 
checking ? What you expect to gain from checking directories not 
reachable symlinked from video.00 ? Its not only my use case - but also 
why vdr should waste time/cpu cycles to do that without gaining something.

vdr mailing list

Reply via email to