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 firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr