From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <9fdd4f468be52d3ca43b4c5ed3371463@9fs.org>
From: "Nigel Roles" <nigel@9fs.org>
To: "9fans@cse.psu.edu" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.1020625115620.22557A-100000@teach.ic.ucsc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] dumb question
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 10:14:40 +0100
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b9ca9ef0-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

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.