From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Aug 17 18:56:42 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.129.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F7D237BF4B for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:51:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dt052n3e.san.rr.com (dt051n1f.san.rr.com [204.210.32.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33AF6E3B3B for ; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:40:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slave (doug@slave [10.0.0.1]) by dt052n3e.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA45749; Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:38:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 12:38:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton X-Sender: doug@dt051n1f.san.rr.com To: Brian Somers Cc: Gerhard Sittig , FreeBSD stable Subject: Re: remove empty TEMPROOT dirs at mergemaster's end? (was: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/mergemaster mergemaster.sh) In-Reply-To: <200008171114.e7HBEuq01585@hak.lan.Awfulhak.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 17 Aug 2000, Brian Somers wrote: > This would probably be quite useful. > > What do you think Doug (cc'd) ? Thanks for including me.. .I'm a little behind on my freebsd mail right now. (Social life?!? Who authorized that?) > > While I see you editing this script: Is it a good idea to clean > > out the empty directories at the "Do you wish to delete what is > > left of ${TEMPROOT}? [no] " stage when TEMPROOT is meant to > > stay? I felt it to be somewhat uncomfortable to wade through the > > tree just to find there's almost nothing left to compare. I think I am confused, but that's why we like to solicit feedback from users. :) Most of the time when people leave them temproot directory around it's to deal with a specific file or files that they decided to merge later. If you leave that directory behind and there are real files left to deal with mm spits out a list of files for your consideration, which can be handled with 'mergemaster -r' or by hand. I guess what I'm confused about is what you are wading through and why. If I knew the answer to that, I would know better how to answer your question. As it is, I don't understand why an option is required to do what 'find . -type d -size 0 -delete' will do for you. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I just really don't understand your request. > > Unless I've overlooked something obvious and you stop me, I would > > file a PR with a patch how to expand the " *** ${TEMPROOT} will > > remain" case with a question for removal of all the unnecessary > > stuff. I guess empty files should remain, but empty directories > > could be subject to deletion. I would really prefer that you don't, since unless I hear a compelling case for it I don't plan to add this option. One of the design goals for mm was that it be as friendly as possible for new users. There are already WAY too many options, many of which fall into the "only useful for edge case power users" category, and that's a trend I want to resist. As I said, I can't think of any reason why even a significant minority of people would want to do what you're proposing; there are already options in mm that handle the vast majority of cases where you'd want to revisit the temproot directory; and there are existing, standard unix tools that you can use to accomplish what you're asking for here. Doug -- "Live free or die" - State motto of my ancestral homeland, New Hampshire Do YOU Yahoo!? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message