From owner-freebsd-arch Tue Jul 4 7:34:22 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from point.osg.gov.bc.ca (point.osg.gov.bc.ca [142.32.102.44]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C1537B8B0 for ; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:34:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by point.osg.gov.bc.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) id HAA21528; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:33:25 -0700 Received: from passer.osg.gov.bc.ca(142.32.110.29) via SMTP by point.osg.gov.bc.ca, id smtpda21526; Tue Jul 4 07:33:07 2000 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by passer.osg.gov.bc.ca (8.9.3/8.9.1) id HAA15641; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:33:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cwsys9.cwsent.com(10.2.2.1), claiming to be "cwsys.cwsent.com" via SMTP by passer9.cwsent.com, id smtpdR15639; Tue Jul 4 07:32:15 2000 Received: (from uucp@localhost) by cwsys.cwsent.com (8.10.2/8.9.1) id e64EWE507332; Tue, 4 Jul 2000 07:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200007041432.e64EWE507332@cwsys.cwsent.com> Received: from localhost.cwsent.com(127.0.0.1), claiming to be "cwsys" via SMTP by localhost.cwsent.com, id smtpdUJ7328; Tue Jul 4 07:31:49 2000 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 Reply-To: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group X-OS: FreeBSD 4.0-STABLE X-Sender: cy To: chris@calldei.com Cc: Doug Barton , Sheldon Hearn , Ben Smithurst , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: truncate(1) implementation details In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Jul 2000 21:41:29 CDT." <20000703214129.F66762@holly.calldei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 07:31:49 -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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