Re: [9fans] dumb question

[okamoto@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 338 bytes --]

Please let me say one very important thing. ^_^

If you feel something is missing in Plan 9, you'd better to think why they
eliminated it, particularly when it's related to basic unix commands.
I think there is no such thing which they eliminated carelessly in Plan 9.
I'm saying this from my many such experiences.  :-)

Kenji


[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3269 bytes --]

From: Andrew Stitt <astitt@cats.ucsc.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] dumb question
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:41:06 GMT
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.96.1020626101934.26964C-100000@teach.ic.ucsc.edu>

On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Nigel Roles wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 08:41:06 GMT, Andrew Stitt wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Fco.J.Ballesteros wrote:
> >
> >> Again, from rsc tiny tools :-)
> >>
> >> ; cat /bin/dircp
> >> #!/bin/rc
> >>
> >> switch($#*){
> >> case 2
> >> 	@{cd $1 && tar c .}|@{cd $2 && tar x}
> >> case *
> >> 	echo usage: dircp from to >[1=2]
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >why must i needlessly shove all the files into a tar, then unpack them
> >again? thats incredibly inefficient! that uses roughly twice the space
> >that should be required, it has to copy the files twice, and it has the
> >overhead of having to needless run the data through tar. Is there a better
> >solution to this?
> >      Andrew
>
> This does not use any more space. The tar commands are piped together.
> I doubt a specific cp -r type command would be particularly more efficient.
>
>
>
>
>
i beg to differ, tar uses memory, it uses system resources, i fail to see
how you think this is just as good as just recursively copying files. The
point is I shouldnt have to needlessly use this other program (for Tape
ARchives) to copy directorys. If this is on a fairly busy file server
needlessly running tar twice is simply wasteful and unacceptable when you
could just follow the directory tree.