Dave Gotwisner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rather than assume it just takes a list of files, I would suggest strongly that > whoever chooses > to implement this (if anyone does), they also allow it to take other options as > part of the file.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I see no benefit in taking option strings from an input file. And there'd be a drawback in that one would have to handle quoting differences since there'd no longer be a shell in the loop. E.g. specifying --exclude=\*.bak on the command line would work fine, but putting --exclude=\*.bak in a file would require that du perform the job of the shell in removing a layer of quotes. The alternative of having different (no quotes needed) syntax in the file seems wrong, too. _______________________________________________ Bug-fileutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-fileutils
