[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: (followup) Re: [despammed] Best way to recursive folders?
From:       Mosfet <dan.duley () verizon ! net>
Date:       2003-05-05 0:06:49
[Download RAW message or body]

Not sure. Using my former example I'd still not expect it to go thumbnailing 
/usr/share/doc just because I got it symlinked to my Desktop folder... Find 
may follow them but other utilities don't. It doesn't help that I already 
coded the version that doesn't in 4 different utilities >:/

On Sunday 04 May 2003 07:00 pm, tech@bishop.dhs.org wrote:
> But on the other hand, in order to save diskspace I have several
> directories of desktop backgrounds symlinked in my home directory
> (rather than copying them over), and I *would* like them thumbnailed.
> And, in another comparasion, if I do a recursive find then it *does*
> follow the symlinks.  Maybe a good distinction is "Possibly destructive
> behavior works only on the link itself, otherwise follow it"?
>
> On Sun, May 04, 2003 at 06:50:56PM -0500, Mosfet wrote:
> > Not really. I actually think it would be the proper behavior. Lots of
> > utilities don't follow symlinked directories.
> >
> > For example, I have /usr/share/doc symlinked in /home/mosfet/Desktop so I
> > have easy one-click Konq access to my system documentation. If I rm -r my
> > home directory it certainly doesn't follow the symlink and trash
> > /usr/share/doc ;-) I don't think I'd expect a thumbnail generation
> > utility to follow it either. It would be unexpected behavior for:
> >
> > mkthumb /home/mosfet
> >
> > to go thumbnailling /usr/share/doc as well >:)
> >
> > On Sunday 04 May 2003 02:58 pm, Esben Mose Hansen wrote:
> > > On Sunday 04 May 2003 20:22, Mosfet wrote:
> > > > I mean it's okay in that it works, I just don't know if users will
> > > > demand symbolic links to folders be followed or not ;-)
> > > >
> > > > My current implementation uses lstat, which will cause symbolic links
> > > > to not be recognized in S_ISDIR(), so the link is never added into
> > > > the list of folders to process.
> > >
> > > Ignoring symlinked directories would be a surprising behaviour from a
> > > program, I'm afraid :-/ Perhaps you could insert the inode number in
> > > your list and skip any directories whose inodes was already in there?
> > > It would probably be worth it to keep this list sorted. The "right"
> > > implementation would be a hash of list, of course, but that's probably
> > > not worth the bother unless you have such a hash implementation lying
> > > around.
> > >
> > >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to
> > >> unsubscribe <<
> >>
> >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to
> >> unsubscribe <<
 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]