Re: [Bug-ddrescue] Suggestions to rename "logfile"

[Antonio Diaz Diaz]

Hello Florian and Martin,

Florian Sedivy wrote:
> I know I am quite late to the party, as there already is a release
> candidate with "blockfile", but would still like to give my input.

Don't worry. Nobody seems to have noticed rc2. ;-)


> My proposition is "mapfile" to replace "logfile"

Ok, you have convinced me. I'll prepare rc3 with "mapfile" ASAP.

BTW, ddrescue may have just one option with "logfile" in its name, but 
ddrescuelog has 8 such options.


> But I am with Adrien and Felix for making it mandatory. This is the
> one most common error, and it is easy to prevent. I propose to allow
> a single "-" as 3rd parameter to operate without a logfile. That way
> the experienced user has only minimal inconvenience when making
> logless runs.

"minimal inconvenience" is subjective. I, for example, use ddrescue as a 
replacement for dd and find the '--force' option enough of an 
inconvenience that I am sometimes tempted to remove it.

The main reason why I keep '--force' is because it may prevent a 
catastrophic error (overwriting data in the destination drive). But the 
lack of a logfile just can make the rescue longer, and perhaps reduce 
the amount of data rescued, for those who think they are cleverer than 
the fine manual.

Finally, I think that using a single "-" to mean anything other that 
reading from stdin or writing to stdout is confusing to say the least.


Best regards,
Antonio.