Hi Jim, Jim Meyering <[email protected]> writes:
> I'm not convinced that adding a lot of new code just to make tail -f > handle a far-fetched case like that is worthwhile. But that's just > my opinion, and if someone can present a use-case that makes it seem > the additional code would be put to good use, I'll keep an open mind ;) So you don't want tail -F to handle the case that the parent directory is removed and after re-created? tail will not open again the watched file in this case, or in the case the parent directory was created after tail initialization. As any parent directory up to '/' can be removed, if we decide to handle the case the parent can be removed, it is not a bad idea to do in a more generic way. I think the difference, in lines of code, between handle just the parent or the full hierarchy is not much, it is just a generalization. On the other hand, as user I rarely use -F and -f is enough, I really don't remember any case where the parent directory could be removed or renamed and don't handle the parent directory will not be a real problem. Cheers, Giuseppe _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
