Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2000 10:38:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Paul Herman <pherman@frenchfries.net> To: clefevre@citeweb.net Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bin/19635: add -c for grand total to df(1), like du(1) does Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0007080833200.232-100000@bagabeedaboo.security.at12.de> In-Reply-To: <sntlcwik.fsf@pc166.gits.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8 Jul 2000, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > Paul Herman <pherman@frenchfries.net> writes: > > > Hee, hee. Yes, this is probably no big deal (and not put forth as any > > strong argument for not commiting this) > > humm! you are looking for a small bug (the beast :) > this problem also exists w/ du -c... > > # cp -rp /etc/defaults total > # du -c total > 69 total > 69 total > > so, your argumentation isn't "viable" (in french, don't know the > translation in english, sorry). The argument isn't viable in english either. ;-) You are absolutely right. I never said it was an argument. In fact, I even stated that it wasn't. That was just a side note. Remember, I'm not against your patch -- I'm simply trying to find reasons why this should be commited, which I have yet to find. If someone chooses to commit the '-c' option for 'df' soley for the reason that 'du' command has the same option, I won't complain. I just find the reasoning a bit strange, that's all. I would like to let this thread go. All pros/cons for this matter, if there are any at all, have already been put on the table 2-3 emails ago. -Paul. P.S. If you had a 'df' option that gives me _new_ information, like %frag or something, you'd have my vote. (BTW, if you are taking suggestions, I'd rather have a 'df -p' that paints my house! :) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0007080833200.232-100000>