From owner-freebsd-arch  Mon Jul  3  6: 6: 8 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from axl.ops.uunet.co.za (axl.ops.uunet.co.za [196.31.2.163])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C9937C0DF
	for <arch@freebsd.org>; Mon,  3 Jul 2000 06:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from sheldonh@axl.ops.uunet.co.za)
Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.ops.uunet.co.za)
	by axl.ops.uunet.co.za with local-esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1)
	id 1395uq-0007ny-00; Mon, 03 Jul 2000 15:05:36 +0200
From: Sheldon Hearn <sheldonh@uunet.co.za>
To: James Howard <howardjp@glue.umd.edu>
Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: truncate(1) implementation details 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 03 Jul 2000 09:01:20 -0400."
             <Pine.GSO.4.21.0007030900160.3727-100000@y.glue.umd.edu> 
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 15:05:36 +0200
Message-ID: <30005.962629536@axl.ops.uunet.co.za>
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG



On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 09:01:20 -0400, James Howard wrote:

> It would make sense to have it follow the semantics of the system call and
> then add a -c to create if nonexistent as Langer suggested.

I'm convinced, but it introduces a problem.  Given that it looks like
we'll allow '+' or '-' to be prepended to the size argument to allow
size changes rather than absolute sizes, what does this mean:

	truncate -c -1024 nonexistant_file

Ciao,
Sheldon.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message