"Doncho N. Gunchev" <mr700@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thursday 04 March 2004 16:27, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote: >> Harry Putnam wrote: >> > Are we really sure this is such a good idea? I don't see any real >> > advantage over the old way. And I'm probably not the only one who has >> > home-made tools that depend on the current naming system. >> > >> > Seems like adding the date stamp is only dubbling the info already >> > available in long ls output. >> >> I'm also a little skeptical if this is a good feature. And not just >> because I would have to hack my beautiful rotation-handling routines in >> epylog. :) > > This can be solved easily with symlinks I think, right? How much easier are symlinks than doing nothing? Or than using sort with the right flags etc. > I see at least 3: > - you get better idea when the logfile was last used If you are using find and `newer' or similar it won't help a bit. > - can be sorted easily (instead of log.1 log.10 log.11 log.2 > ...) sort has enough flags to handle that with no problem... no extra symlinking or the like required. > - rsync/whatever will save a lot of traffic. Can you explain this one... Not sure I understand how rsync does more or less work either way.
