Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 01:48:06 -0500 From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: fts improvements, alternatives Message-ID: <20050114064806.GA10856@VARK.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <41E716F3.20504@freebsd.org> References: <200501120735.j0C7ZABq048856@repoman.freebsd.org> <41E5ED66.4070902@freebsd.org> <20050113072153.GA28485@VARK.MIT.EDU> <41E716F3.20504@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005, Tim Kientzle wrote: > [Moved to -current for further discussion.] > > David Schultz wrote: > >Tim Kientzle wrote: > >>Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: > >> > >>>Introduce new field 'fts_bignum' ... > >>>This work is part of the BigDisk project: > >>> http://www.FreeBSD.org/projects/bigdisk/ > >> > >>Any plans to deal with other fts limits ... ? > > > >Removing FTS_LOGICAL's path length limitation is nontrivial, but > >given your experience with bsdtar, I'd say you're an ideal person > >to do it. ;-) > > As it happens, I started tinkering with these ideas 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? ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050114064806.GA10856>