[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#10282: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit efe5
From: |
Kamil Dudka |
Subject: |
bug#10282: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit efe53cc) |
Date: |
Tue, 13 Dec 2011 17:46:05 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.32-220.el6.x86_64; KDE/4.3.4; x86_64; ; ) |
On Tuesday 13 December 2011 08:09:08 Jim Meyering wrote:
> Paul Eggert wrote:
> > On 12/12/11 14:58, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> "Files with multiple links shall be counted and written for only one
> >> entry. The directory entry that is selected in the report is
> >> unspecified."
> >
> > Yes, that's partly what motivates the current GNU du behavior:
> > the idea is to implement this notion consistently (historical
> > 'du' implementations do not).
> >
> >> But even historically, command line arguments were always listed, even
> >> if they are otherwise multiple links.
> >
> > I suppose we could change GNU 'du' to output "0 X" for a command-line
> > argument X that's already been seen.
>
> This seems sensible.
>
> > This wouldn't address the problem
> > perceived by the original poster, though. And it's a glitch from the
> > point of view of consistency.
>
> I agree that printing "0 X" for these seems inconsistent with the
> elision mandated for the second and subsequent encounter of a file,
> but I suppose command line arguments are intrinsically different
> enough that handling them specially makes sense. Maybe even as
> the default.
>
> > Perhaps 'du' needs a new option to control what to do with
> > files that 'du' has already seen before. something that
> > generalizes --count-links.
>
> That sounds like a good way to do it.
> Anyone interested?
Thank all of you for looking at the issue. If I understand it correctly, the
old behavior was violating POSIX whereas the current default behavior is
correct. I tried du --count-links with the original reproducer and it seemed
to work fine. So what would be the point in adding a new option?
Kamil
- bug#10281: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit, (continued)
- bug#10281: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit efe53cc), Elliott Forney, 2011/12/16
- bug#10281: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit efe53cc), Eric Blake, 2011/12/16
- bug#10281: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit efe53cc), Eric Blake, 2011/12/16
- bug#10281: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit efe53cc), Voelker, Bernhard, 2011/12/19
bug#10282: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit efe53cc), Eric Blake, 2011/12/12
- bug#10282: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit efe53cc), Eric Blake, 2011/12/12
- bug#10282: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit efe53cc), Paul Eggert, 2011/12/12
- bug#10282: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit efe53cc), Jim Meyering, 2011/12/13
- bug#10282: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit efe53cc),
Kamil Dudka <=
- bug#10282: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit efe53cc), Paul Eggert, 2011/12/13
- bug#10282: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit efe53cc), Eric Blake, 2011/12/13
- bug#10282: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit efe53cc), Kamil Dudka, 2011/12/13
- bug#10282: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit efe53cc), Eric Blake, 2011/12/13
- bug#10282: change in behavior of du with multiple arguments (commit efe53cc), Paul Eggert, 2011/12/13