Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2002 17:17:35 -0600 From: D J Hawkey Jr <hawkeyd@visi.com> To: questions at FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Periodic scripts too liberal Message-ID: <20020308171735.C3281@sheol.localdomain>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Forwarded, after an MTA informed me that "FreeBSD-questions@27in.tv"
can't be reached. I neglected to notice that address before I group-
replied to the message I received.
Dave
--
______________________ ______________________
\__________________ \ D. J. HAWKEY JR. / __________________/
\________________/\ hawkeyd@visi.com /\________________/
http://www.visi.com/~hawkeyd/
----- Forwarded message from D J Hawkey Jr <hawkeyd@visi.com> -----
On Mar 08, at 03:15 PM, C J Michaels wrote:
>
> Some time in the recent past D J Hawkey Jr scribbled:
> > On Mar 03, at 08:17 PM, David Malone wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Mar 03, 2002 at 11:15:59AM -0600, D J Hawkey Jr wrote:
> >> > 100.clean-disks has no allowance for excluding paths; I would not
> >> > want it to clean core dumps or a.out within $(HOME) directories, for
> >> > instance.
> >>
> >> It would be relatively easy to add a variable which gave directories
> >> to skip...
> >>
> >> > [SNIP]
> >> >
> >> > It would have bothered me greatly to wake up next week and find
> >> > these listed subdirectories, or any others, missing.
> >>
> >> It will only delete these directories if they are empty and they
> >> haven't been modified in $daily_clean_tmps_days. (You can't check if
> >> they have been accesses as the previous find will have accessed them.)
> >> I'm not sure how much concelation that is ;-)
> >>
> >> ...I'm sure it would be accepted as a patch if you submitted it.
>
> Probably too little too late, but I've fallen behing on the mailing lists.
>
> IMHO, if a program is dependant on a directory existing in _/tmp_ it should
> be intelligent enough to create the dir if it does not exist. /tmp is the
> last place anyone should expect to be consistent.
I agree. At least anything _I've_ written does. But there's a lot of, um,
"faster-than-foresight" coders hammering out a lot of stuff anymore. In
short, no guarantees, and as such, the OS shouldn't remove them.
<opinion>
That's the one big downside to the OSS movement, and explosive growth of
the Internet, as I see it. Lotso would-be Joys, LaStranges, and Torvalds,
without the experience and insight to back up the volume of code. Pre-70s,
let's say, a coder generally gained experience as an employee, where certain
practices and procedures were in place and followed. But now, look around,
computer bars, "Do This For Dummies" books, home computers with more power
than those that launched Mercury... Anyone can publish hacks from the
comfort of their bedroom, and they do. Don't get me wrong, I think it a
Good Thing(tm), in general.
</opinion>
> Mind you, I do believe an exclusion list would be quite helpful.
>
> > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=35545
Nor I (duh). Hence the PR, which still hasn't gotten any attention. But
then, I s'pose something like the OpenSSH bug must have priority... :-)
SeeYa,
Dave
----- End forwarded message -----
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020308171735.C3281>