On 04/15/09 08:57, Steffen Barszus wrote: > Klaus Schmidinger schrieb: >> On 15.04.2009 08:24, Steffen Barszus wrote: >> >>> ...On the other hand i think what vdr does is a bad idea >>> and unnecessary. period. >>> >>>> Still I support the opinion that vdr should not silently delete files it does >>>> not know. >>>> >>>> >>> vdr is not deleting files it does not know. Its only deleting empty >>> directories in its video directories. >>> >> >From the VDR/INSTALL file: >> >> Note that you should not copy any non-VDR files into the /videoX directories, >> since this might cause a lot of unnecessary disk access when VDR cleans up those >> directories and there is a large number of files and/or subdirectories in >> there. >> >> The video directory is VDR's own space, there shall be nothing else >> in there. If the user puts anything non-VDR related into it (even by >> mistake), it's their fault. >> >> Klaus >> > I know that and what i did - and this might not be suggested (i'm mostly > happy user since 7 years now). My question was: Why ? > > It should not be necessary for vdr to check at all second (or third) > harddisk. Going into directory hierarchy at disk one should be good enough. > I could understand if vdr would blend into one structure > directories/files on all harddisk without the symlinking - but fixing > things like that needs to be done manually. So why not drop this > checking ? What you expect to gain from checking directories not > reachable symlinked from video.00 ? Its not only my use case - but also > why vdr should waste time/cpu cycles to do that without gaining something. I am not going to touch this multi-directory stuff - except for removing it from VDR altogether. I was never happy with this and deeply regret ever letting me talk into implementing this... Klaus _______________________________________________ vdr mailing list vdr@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.linuxtv.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/vdr
