From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 14 07:38:05 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22B5D16A4CE; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:38:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from kientzle.com (h-66-166-149-50.snvacaid.covad.net [66.166.149.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D4E943D54; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:38:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Received: from freebsd.org (p54.kientzle.com [66.166.149.54]) by kientzle.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j0E7c3OZ028482; Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:38:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from kientzle@freebsd.org) Message-ID: <41E776DA.6080809@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 23:38:02 -0800 From: Tim Kientzle User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20031006 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Schultz References: <200501120735.j0C7ZABq048856@repoman.freebsd.org> <41E5ED66.4070902@freebsd.org> <20050113072153.GA28485@VARK.MIT.EDU> <41E716F3.20504@freebsd.org> <20050114064806.GA10856@VARK.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <20050114064806.GA10856@VARK.MIT.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: "'freebsd-current@freebsd.org'" cc: Pawel Jakub Dawidek Subject: Re: fts improvements, alternatives X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 07:38:05 -0000 David Schultz wrote: > On Thu, Jan 13, 2005, Tim Kientzle wrote: >> >>As it happens, I started tinkering with these ideas >>[about a better way to traverse directory trees] a >>while ago but haven't found time to finish it all. >> >>Here's a snapshot of the current WIP: >> >>http://people.freebsd.org/~kientzle/libarchive/src/tree.tgz > > Nice. That's much cleaner than the fts implementation (although > it doesn't do all that fts does.) So tell me again: when did you > say were you planning on rewriting/fixing fts? ;-) The basic problems with fts are hard to fix without breaking the API badly. On the other hand, augmenting "tree" to the point that it can replace fts in many (but not all) applications would interest me. Since you've done more work with fts-using applications than I have recently, you tell me: What does "tree" absolutely require to be usable in a broad cross-section of applications? It already does what bsdtar needs, of course. Accepting a sort parameter is probably not in the making, of course. Part of the whole point to "tree" is that it doesn't store a lot of data at one time. fts has to be better at something, right? ;-) Tim