Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> >
> > You know what tar(1) will do with you for that, don't you? Same ->st_ino
> > with different contents... And unlike procfs, here tar is a Reasonable
> > Thing(tm).
>
> But "tar" won't even _see_ the thing. Unless "tar" starts to know about
> S_IFCOMPLEX. In which case it's a non-issue.
Linus,
the HFS guys made a point of making the filesystem capable of being
tar-copied. I think that this is a useful feature. It's not that we
can't change tar: We have the source. It's that lots of Unix programs
make assumptions (similar to what tar does) about what a directory
tree looks like. Now you've never wanted to use tar to copy a
/procfs. But it works on NFS.
So, (I must've missed the first part of this discussion) what's wrong
with the HFS way of doing things?
~/myfile (data fork)
~/.resource/myfile (resource fork)
This may not be "generic" enough for abitrarily named forks. Think of
something that IS. It's not all that hard:
~/myfile (data/default fork)
~/.streams/myfile/resource (resource fork)
~/.streams/myfile/Icon (icon fork)
~/.streams/myfile/default (hardlink to ~/myfile )
Advantages:
- Tar-copyable.
- Unix utilities don't see anything odd.
- ls will show you just the "files" (unless -a or -R).
Disadvantages:
- The resource fork is a bit "far" away from the data
fork. (myfile/data and myfile/resource are indeed closer)
Anything I've missed?
Roger.
-- ** R.E.Wolff@BitWizard.nl ** http://www.BitWizard.nl/ ** +31-15-2137555 ** *-- BitWizard writes Linux device drivers for any device you may have! --* * Common sense is the collection of * ****** prejudices acquired by age eighteen. -- Albert Einstein ********- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 21:00:29 EST