On 1/24/06, Andreas Gruenbacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 23 January 2006 22:23, Dean Roehrich wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 09:44:08PM +0100, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote: > > > I still need to fix ftw by either using nftw or something else; then we > > > should be ready for 0.43. > > > > The "something else" that I'm using today is sun-backup-files-2.diff from > > http://zeroj.hda0.net/quilt-0.43-patches-v5/ > > > > This appears to be happy on Solaris and linux. I did have one question > > about it, though. Perhaps the addition of the 'rm -rf' in push.in should > > be joined with the preceding backup-files with an &&, as was done in > > pop.in? > > It probably should, but I'd really prefer fixing backup-files instead. It does > matter how many programs are forked/exec'd at this place, and it's just > unclean for backup-files to leave around trash that it created before.
In order to get some idea of how expensive a a bash only implementation would be, I have roughly drafted up a patch that implements backup-files -r. http://zeroj.hda0.net/quilt-0.43-patches-v5/sh-restore-2.diff There are two exec's per patch, and for push, one exec per file; for pop, two. While this is probably too expensive for linux kernel development, it certainly wouldn't affect me with only a few small patches per series. Could we introduce a bash only implementation for platforms without nftw? -- John _______________________________________________ Quilt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/quilt-dev
