Eric Sandeen wrote: > Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Pádraig Brady <P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >>> Tilman Schmidt wrote: > > ... > >>>> 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. > > I'm curious - how much code will be shared, really? > > in terms of functionality, truncate currently has: > > -c, --no-create > do not create any files > -o, --io-blocks > Treat SIZE as number of IO blocks instead of bytes > -r, --reference=FILE > use this FILE’s size > -s, --size=SIZE > use this SIZE > --help display this help and exit > --version > output version information and exit > > the_util_previously_known_as_fallocate would have something like: > > -c, --no-create > do not create any files > -o, --offset=OFFSET > start allocation at this OFFSET (0 default) > -l, --length=LENGTH > allocate this LENGTH starting at OFFSET (or 0) > -n, --no-size-update > do not change i_size (allow blocks past EOF) > --help display this help and exit > --version > output version information and exit I was thinking the new fallocate util would have the same options as the existing truncate util. I.E. -n or -o would not be needed or supportable in all situations. If you think that users would need those, then I suggest adding the linux specific fallocate util to util-linux-ng, and we'll add the more generic `truncate --allocate` (or separate command) to coreutils. cheers, Pádraig. -- 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
