Garrett D'Amore wrote on Tue Jul 21 2009 19:43:41 GMT-0700 (PDT) : > U.V. Ravindra wrote: >> >>> What is the stability of the save files? >> >> They are not considered stable. >> >> The save files are only useful if the user wants to preserve >> the 'fake' appearances from one session to the next. To use >> the mknod example from above, if the user exited the fakeroot >> session without storing to a save file, all the fake information >> will be lost. The next time the user starts a fakeroot session, >> the 'mknod'ed file will be reported only as a regular file. >> On the other hand if the session were to be saved and reloaded >> in the new session, it will be reported as a block special file. >> >> The files can be removed or edited outside of the fakeroot >> session. If this is done, some or all information in them >> can be lost. > > Understood. And I'm happy with that. Lets put the save files as a > Volatile interface, or even Not-An-Interface, then. Agree?
Agree. I'll mark them Volatile. >>> The --cleanup makes references to semaphores, but I don't see >>> information about how those are used/created? How is faked started? >>> Automatically by fakeroot, or via some other scheme? >> >> It's started automatically by fakeroot. It can be invoked by >> the user directly, but that won't be of any use unless there's >> a fakeroot at the other end. > > Okay. Probably the man page should have stated that... if it did I > missed it. But then I missed so much other material in the case review > up front, I am hesitant to make any other claims about the case > materials and put yet more egg on my face. :-) The man page doesn't say this. In fact, the man pages are woefully inadequate, but I refrained from "patching" them too much for fear of diverging the documentation too far from the one that came with the F/OSS tarball. If this information is deemed mandatory for the man page, I can add it. -Ravindra.
