Hello, Pádraig Brady <P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Tilman Schmidt wrote: >> Pádraig Brady schrieb: >>> I don't see a problem in extending the meaning of the truncate command. >>> Now truncate isn't the best name for the command but that name >>> already existed in BSD and so I thought it best to align with that. >>> So what about also having an fallocate command in coreutils? >>> Well it would benefit from all the existing options of the truncate command, >>> I.E. would share most of the code, so I'm not convinced. >> >> Why not make it, in the best Unix tradition, a single >> executable whose action depends on the name it is run as? > > Hmm. Good idea. > There is precedent for that already in coreutils. What do you think about having two separate executables? Considering fallocate and truncate will share almost all code, these differences can be separed at compilation-time. It seems that the same approach is already used by md5sum and shaXXXsum. IMHO, it is a bit cleaner than depend from the argv[0] value at run-time (Tilman, is it what you meant?). Cheers, Giuseppe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
