Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 07:31:49 -0700 From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> To: chris@calldei.com Cc: Doug Barton <DougB@gorean.org>, Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>, Ben Smithurst <ben@scientia.demon.co.uk>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: truncate(1) implementation details Message-ID: <200007041432.e64EWE507332@cwsys.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 03 Jul 2000 21:41:29 CDT." <20000703214129.F66762@holly.calldei.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20000703214129.F66762@holly.calldei.com>, Chris Costello writes: > On Monday, July 03, 2000, Doug Barton wrote: > > Errr.. no. I agree that truncate(1) should be consistent with > > truncate(2). Rod also made the excellent point that -c means exactly the > > opposite in touch than you are proposing here. Even in a script, > > > > [ truncate foo ] || touch foo > > More or less ``touch foo && truncate foo'' accomplishes the > same thing as the proposed truncate -c foo. As one who writes shell scripts in order to reduce the overhead of forks and execs that are absolutely necessary, why not a -c option? For those who don't want a -c option, just don't use the option. What could be simpler? I don't see what all the fuss is about. If we need to keep everyone happy, #ifdef it and put the option in make.conf. Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Team Leader, Sun/DEC Team Internet: Cy.Schubert@osg.gov.bc.ca Open Systems Group, ITSD, ISTA Province of BC To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200007041432.e64EWE507332>