On Monday 25 February 2008 21:29, Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russell if you want to push code to me it's fine,
> but I was going to work on this tool anyway.
I don't have any code (yet). If you are going to work on it then I would be
more than happy to leave it to you. I would b
On Monday 25 February 2008 22:11, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > One non-obvious feature request that I have is for a truncate on a
> > non-existant file to create it (similar to the way "touch" is commonly
> > used to create files).
>
> The obvious question is then "Why?"
One specifi
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 10:08, Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dd bs=1 seek=2G of=/var/spool/whatever/foo < /dev/null
>
> Also, the latter command works even if the former command is omitted.
> That is, by itself, that invocation of dd resizes
> /var/spool/whatever/foo to 2 GiB,
On Tuesday 26 February 2008 21:03, Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That depends on your definition of "works".
> > If you don't mind retaining the first 2GiB of content in
> > a preexisting output file, then it works fine. But the initial
> > truncation is required if you want to be s
On Monday 31 March 2008 20:02, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like Michael's suggestion. Rephrasing it,
>
> if (SELinux, with no other MAC or ACL)
> use '.'
> else if (any other combination of alternate access methods)
> use '+'
>
> If someone who already has a cop
useful thing ls could tell me about a file on my SELinux
> system would be that it *should* have a label and *doesn't*,
> something like:
>
> if ( selinux_enabled )
>if ( label == NULL || label == fs.defaultlabel )
> use "!"
>else
>
On Friday 30 March 2007 21:18, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Regarding the --context=C (-Z C) option that is now accepted by
> mkdir, mknod, mkfifo, and install, I am inclined to
Currently mkdir, mknod, and mkfifo support a -m option to set the mode.
Install has options to also set t
On Friday 30 March 2007 23:13, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What did you think of the proposal (in the link above) for
>
> fscon CTX mkdir /new/directory
>
> IMHO, it's not so much less "user friendly" than this equivalent:
>
> mkdir -C CTX /new/directory
How about:
umask what
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 23:39, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's probably going overboard, but some application might
> even want to call fsync on each containing directory.
I expect that the overhead of calling fsync on the directory is negligible
compared to the overhead of calli
