Re: [Sheflug] listing sizes of directories..

[Alex Hudson <nospam [at] id-pro.co.uk>]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> You're telling an economist that one way to deal with a problem is to
> assume it doesn't exist?
> 
> The point is not to redefine "filesystem."  It is that Unix filesystem
> semantics is often an appropriate way to present hierarchical
> information structures.  If you have such a structure, then mapping it
> into the filesystem is a good idea.  Viz, /proc and /dev.
> 
> The issue is that some utilities have expectations of what they'll
> find in directory entries, such as semantically useful time stamps,
> owners, sizes, and modes.  If a virtual filesystem does not provide
> those semantics, then programs will provide garbage results.  That's
> why _you_ have to worry about semantics/versions/standards.

The point is, "filesystem" might need to be redefined if the semantics
become meaningless, or half-meaningless at best. I'm not convinced a
virtual filesystem necessarily shares 'time-stamps' in the same manner a
physical filesystem, especially if it is an informational system, such
as proc, or representing some other such non-file-but-data-all-the-same
objects..

>     Al> Sorry, I've changed subject without telling you ;) I was
> No, you haven't.

Yes, I have.

>     Al> referring to the *files* within /proc, not the directory
> Of course you're referring to the directory; the file has *no*
> information about itself unless it's a directory or an object in a
> very low-level OO system (ie, an OO FS).  Some of the information is
> in the directory itself (name) and the rest is in the inode.  The file
> is a completely different data structure.

That's nit-picking - the relationship is between the data and the file,
not the data and the directory. The file then has a relationship with
the directory. Although the directory may be the store of such
information, that's an implementation issue. It doesn't matter where the
data is stored.

>     Al> If I don't fix them? Personally? ;))) I don't care whether
>     Al> version numbers go away or not; I just don't want to have to
>     Al> interact with them ;)
> 
> Suffering from a bug is an "interaction."  I prefer my interactions to
> be wins, or at least repairs, rather than "lose lose lose."

All I was saying was, it can go on if it wants, just do it behind my
back ;) Not a philosophy I expect you to share ;)

-- 
Alex Hudson <hudson [at] ID-PRO.co.uk> * Open Source I.T. 
* ID-PRO UK Ltd. * 1 Benjamin Street * London EC1M 5QG 
* Tel. +44 (0) 20 7689 8448 * Fax +44 (0) 20 7689 8242
* http://www.id-pro.co.uk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheffield Linux User's Group - http://www.sheflug.co.uk
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to
- <sheflug-request [at] vuw.ac.nz> - with the word 
 "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. 

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.