From owner-freebsd-arch Sun Jan 28 9:16:41 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from ringworld.nanolink.com (ringworld.nanolink.com [195.24.48.189]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BDDC637B6A1 for ; Sun, 28 Jan 2001 09:16:21 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 686 invoked by uid 1000); 28 Jan 2001 17:14:49 -0000 Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 19:14:49 +0200 From: Peter Pentchev To: arch@FreeBSD.org Cc: chris@calldei.com, Randell Jesup Subject: Re: add -I ignoremask option to du(1) Message-ID: <20010128191449.A513@ringworld.oblivion.bg> Mail-Followup-To: arch@FreeBSD.org, chris@calldei.com, Randell Jesup References: <20001214034803.C575@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <20001230012354.B20546@holly.calldei.com> <20001230095122.A4285@ringworld.oblivion.bg> <20001230160755.E20546@holly.calldei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from rjesup@wgate.com on Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 03:19:01PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG So, what's the consensus on that one? :) Or should somebody give a roll call, and count votes? :) G'luck, Peter -- I've heard that this sentence is a rumor. On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 03:19:01PM -0500, Randell Jesup wrote: > Chris Costello writes: > >On Saturday, December 30, 2000, Peter Pentchev wrote: > >> This doesn't 1. exclude subdirectories; 2. provide per-directory stats. > >> In no way does it solve the problem I mentioned in the part you quoted - > >> excluding CVS/ subdirs from du output on a source tree. > > > > Sorry. Try: > > > >find . -maxdepth 1 \! \( -path '*CVS*' \) | xargs du -skc > > Nope. First, this considers files to be the same as directories. > Second, this only excludes CVS directories from the top level - deeper CVS > directories are included. > > Suffice it to say this series of attempts indicates that find/etc is > NOT a reasonable(*) way to implement this (reasonable) request. > > Add the argument to du(1). > > Randell > > (*): since no one here in what should be one of the most experienced group > of BSD hackers has posted a workable "unix-style" method, I conclude > that it's either not possible, or at least is so non-obvious as to be > effectively non-existant to any but the most experienced user. > > That's the problem with the old-school Unix philosophy of no program doing > more than one thing, and stringing them together - the "stringing them > together" part often ends up being as complicated a task as programming a > solution into the program itself - or even more complicated. That's ok > (sort of) if everyone using it is a programmer, and doesn't mind > reinventing the wheel every few days. It's not ok for 99% of users. > > Sure, shell's are programming languages - but I don't really want to write > a program just to find out how much disk space I'm using, or to sort the > output of ls (another old argument), etc. > > ps. yes, I am a shell-script hacker to a degree, and have written shells, > and used shells in all sorts of evil ways - but I don't want to tell > everyone else to try to do that. > > -- > Randell Jesup, Worldgate Communications, ex-Scala, ex-Amiga OS team ('88-94) > rjesup@wgate.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message