Robert Elz wrote:
> Most of the rest of this proposal is (a disaster) - it is far too
> complicated with two many pitfalls, for very little rational benefit.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-Jan
Date:Tue, 14 Feb 2023 12:06:03 -0500
From:Jan Schaumann
Message-ID:
| Setting the first name is a good alternative.
Or just the first suffix, an option for that would not be a disaster.
But it really shouldn't be needed.
Most of the rest of this proposal is (a di
On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 17:31:36 +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 04:05:20PM -0500, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> > The attached diff adds a flag "-c" (mnemonic "create,
> > don't overwrite" or "continue where you left off"):
> >
> > $ split file; ls
> > xaa xab xac xad
> > $ spli
>> Besides, isn't your intended behaviour easily done with:
>> $ cat file second-file | split
> That only works if I have both files available at the time I run the
> split command.
It also will (unless the first file is a multiple of the split size)
take the last part of file and the first par
Martin Husemann wrote:
> How about instead adding an option that sets the first name explicitly
> and keeps the "abort on failure" behaviour?
Setting the first name is a good alternative. I'll
have to see how that works with specifying a prefix
(e.g., user specified a first file that doesn't ma
> How about instead adding an option that sets the first name explicitly
> and keeps the "abort on failure" behaviour?
That looks like a much better idea to me.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 04:05:20PM -0500, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> The attached diff adds a flag "-c" (mnemonic "create,
> don't overwrite" or "continue where you left off"):
>
> $ split file; ls
> xaa xab xac xad
> $ split -c second-file; ls
> xaa xab xac xad xae xaf xag xah xai xaj
I think this i
> $ split -n 4 -c file; ls
> xaa xab xac xad xae xaf xag
> --- --- --- ---
> I don't see a way around that: split(1) would need to look ahead at
> _any_ possible file to be able to determine if the current file name
> falls into a hole in the sequence.
That isn't that hard to do, assu
Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
> Definitely O_EXCL and EEXIST, yes. But we still can fall into a hole
> in the sequence, fill it, and skip over the remaining part(s), thus
> interleaving our new and the preexisting files.
Ah, you mean if I currently have
$ ls
xaa xad xae
and then run
$ split -n 4
On Sun, Feb 12, 2023 at 04:19:43PM -0500, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> Jan Schaumann wrote:
>
> > The attached diff adds a flag "-c" (mnemonic "create,
> > don't overwrite" or "continue where you left off"):
>
> Ugh, and once more without a race condition. [...]
Definitely O_EXCL and EEXIST, yes. Bu
10 matches
Mail list logo
