Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: > 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.
Hi Giuseppe, That's right. I'm not convinced it's worth handling that case, due to what I perceive as an inordinately high cost/benefit ratio. [by "cost", I mean not just raw code size, but also maintenance over the coming years] However, if someone comes up with a particularly small and clean patch to add that functionality, it might be acceptable. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
