On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 04:05:45PM +0200, Dominique Dumont wrote:
> On Thursday 02 May 2013 11:29:58 Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > How is that better than the existing inotify shell tools? What do they
> > lack and why not improve them instead of writing a new one?
>
> inotify-hookable main advantage over inotywait are:
> - you can specify command to run after watch as option.
> - watch are restarted
> - when watching a directory, inotify-hookable ignore emacs
> and backup files by default.
> - you can specify different commands to run depending on which
> files was changed
>
> inotifywait is better suited to be used within a shell script.
>
> inotify-hookable is better when you just want to run something on the command
> line.
>
> I currently use the following command to compile a bunch of less files into a
> css file. The css file and the less file are located in the same directory:
>
> inotify-hookable -w . -i '.*css$' -c '../../enyo/tools/lessc.sh ./package.js'
Still no argument to have 2 source packages. The inotify-tools source could
provide both interfaces if they can't be merged into a single one.
Inotify-tools already has inotifywait and inotifywatch. I don't see a
reason why inotifyhook couldn't be added as 3rd tool. They could
probably share a lot of code too.
Just my 2c,
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130502150720.GB2080@frosties
