< said:
> What POSIX.1-200x says about this thing? I don't have this book in hand.
The rationale includes a table of options used to controlling symlink
following in various programs, and suggests that `-H', `-L', and
`-P' be used in new programs which implement filesystem traversal.
-GAWollman
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 16:02 -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> "Andrey A. Chernov" wrote:
> >
> > [ ... mtree getopts switch code ... ]
> >
>
> Is their any harm in just keeping the -P flag as a no-op and
> optionally remove it at some later time (for backward
> compatibility)?
That's where I
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 09:44:21PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < said:
>
> > Is their any harm in just keeping the -P flag as a no-op and optionally
> > remove it at some later time (for backward compatibility)?
>
> We should try to be consistent with POSIX.1-200x as much as possible.
What
< said:
> Is their any harm in just keeping the -P flag as a no-op and optionally
> remove it at some later time (for backward compatibility)?
We should try to be consistent with POSIX.1-200x as much as possible.
-GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe fre
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Marcel Moolenaar writes:
: Is their any harm in just keeping the -P flag as a no-op and optionally
: remove it at some later time (for backward compatibility)?
-P is non-standard, was introduced only in July and therefore we don't
need to keep it around for any rea
"Andrey A. Chernov" wrote:
>
> --- usr.sbin/mtree/mtree.c.orig Thu Jul 27 07:36:02 2000
> +++ usr.sbin/mtree/mtree.c Fri Sep 15 04:00:46 2000
[snip]
> @@ -115,10 +119,6 @@
> case 'q':
> qflag = 1;
> break;
> - case
On Fri, Sep 15, 2000 at 04:39 +0400, Andrey A. Chernov wrote:
>
> [ ... change mtree(1) physical vs logical traversal ... ]
[ ... mtree.c diff ...]
> @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@
> usage()
> {
> (void)fprintf(stderr,
> -"usage: mtree [-PUcdeinqrux] [-f spec] [-K key] [-k key] [-p path] [-s seed]\
On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 05:41:46PM -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Andrey A. Chernov" writes:
> : Is there any progress in mtree fixing process?
>
> It hasn't been high on my list. I'd be happy to review patches,
> however.
Here it is:
--- usr.sbin/mtree/mtree.c.ori
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Andrey A. Chernov" writes:
: Is there any progress in mtree fixing process?
It hasn't been high on my list. I'd be happy to review patches,
however.
: I think there is acceptable solution, in following steps:
:
: 1) Return mtree defaults.
: 2) Add -L
: 3) Add ${
Is there any progress in mtree fixing process?
I think there is acceptable solution, in following steps:
1) Return mtree defaults.
2) Add -L
3) Add ${MTREE_FOLLOW_LINKS} to mtree calls (which expands to nothing in
old systems, so we not broke anything in the transition process)
4) Add
MTREE_FOLL
10 matches
Mail list logo
