Hm, frustrating...
However, sometimes it may make sense to create an empty directory or read-only file named "core". A while ago, I had a fair amount of trouble on a system consisting of less than grand hardware. The software we were running was something commercial (no source available), and it was quite big and flaky and crashed from time to time. On every crash, it wrote a huge core file, which took a little while to write, and contributed significantly to filling up the hard disk. As we didn't own the source code, and there was no effective support from the manufacturer, the core files weren't really much use. So the best thing we could do was to prevent their creation in the first place, and this can obviously be achieved very easily by creating an empty read-only item named "core" on the filesystem (in all directories where the app in question might try to write a core file) ...
Kind regards, Helmut. -- +----------------+ | Helmut Walle | | wa...@ww.co.nz | | 03 - 388 39 54 | +----------------+ On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, John Carter wrote: [...]
So CVS (and several other tools) have been well training to ignore anything called "core".
[...]
Moral of the story. Avoid the name "core" for anything other than core dumps.
[...]
