From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Aug 9 02:46:03 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B39816A4DA for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 02:46:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from kientzle.com (h-66-166-149-50.snvacaid.covad.net [66.166.149.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16BA143D46 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 02:46:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from [10.0.0.221] (p54.kientzle.com [66.166.149.54]) by kientzle.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id k792k1Fh001398; Tue, 8 Aug 2006 19:46:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <44D94C69.1030901@freebsd.org> Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:46:01 -0700 From: Tim Kientzle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20060422 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Steven Hartland References: <020701c6bb0d$68ae7330$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <020701c6bb0d$68ae7330$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Adding remove file option to BSD tar? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 02:46:03 -0000 Steven Hartland wrote: > What do people think about adding an equivalent to > gtars --remove-files? Shouldn't be too tricky. If you think you know how to implement it, send me the diffs. Doing this "safely" is nearly impossible, of course. In the compressed case, the compression pipeline buffers a LOT of data (bzip2 analyzes 900k blocks at a time). But even in the uncompressed case, archive blocking means that you CANNOT flush the archive after every file. A "safe" implementation would have to defer the actual deletion for a long time. Even without that, though, this is the sort of feature that many people would no doubt find useful. Tim Kientzle