From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ish Rattan <ishwar@pali.cps.cmich.edu>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] dumb question
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.1020626101934.26964C-100000@teach.ic.ucsc.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0206261208010.17854-100000@pali.cps.cmich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2002 12:08:31 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: babf5558-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Wed, 26 Jun 2002, Andrew Stitt wrote:

> 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
Keep it up :-)

-ishwar