On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 01:06:55PM -0400, Garance A Drosehn wrote: > > The point is not that you need an explicit switch, the > point is that you have to add a lot of code to 'cp' for > 'cp' to do the job correctly.
Not really. See my example in a previous post. All you need to do is perform an lseek(2) instead of a write(2) if the block you read is all zero. > You are changing the nature of how the command works. No, you're adding features, not changing the behavior for the default case. > I very much doubt you > can implement that *correctly* in a mere 160 bytes of > additional object code! I'd be willing to bet that my aforementioned example would fit in that space-- because you already do an fstat & the read/write code-- the only thing to add is the zero-checking and seek ahead code. > -r-xr-xr-x 1 root wheel 15348 [date] /bin/cp > -r-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 44288 [date] /sbin/dump > -r-xr-xr-x 2 root wheel 58736 [date] /sbin/restore dump/restore is significantly different in operation than cp. Both do a lot more than just copy files. Also dump/restore is specific to UFS and my example code would handle sparse files for any filesystem. > I realize a lot of these decisions are somewhat subjective. > "One person's feature is another person's bloat". But in > the case of this specific example, I (personally) would > not want 'cp' to implement every detail which is already > handled by dump/restore. I don't think this is what people are asking for. BTW, does dump/restore handle extended attributes? Last I checked, it didn't. But then again I don't think cp or tar do either. Feel free to enlighten me. -- Rick C. Petty _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
