On 04/15/09 08:57, Steffen Barszus wrote:
> 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.

I am not going to touch this multi-directory stuff - except for
removing it from VDR altogether. I was never happy with this and
deeply regret ever letting me talk into implementing this...


vdr mailing list

Reply via email to