[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bug#367691: coreutils: behaviour of du -x[LDP] differs from that of
From: |
Justin Pryzby |
Subject: |
Re: Bug#367691: coreutils: behaviour of du -x[LDP] differs from that of du -[LDP]x |
Date: |
Fri, 19 May 2006 10:34:17 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 |
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 04:05:29PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Justin Pryzby <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > Package: coreutils
> > Version: 5.94-1
> > Severity: normal
> >
> > I was reading du.c, and saw this:
> ...
> > A patch (assuming I understand the intended state of things) would
> > look something like:
> >
> > bit_flags|= FTS_COMFOLLOW;
> > [...]
> > bit_flags = FTS_LOGICAL;
> > bit_flags&=~FTS_PHYSICAL;
> > [...]
> > bit_flags|=FTS_PHYSICAL;
> > bit_flags&=~FTS_LOGICAL;
> >
> > This also avoids clearing FTS_TIGHT_CYCLE_CHECK, which I'm guessing is
> > not intentional?
>
> You're right.
> Thanks for spotting that.
>
> Here's the change I've checked in for 6.0 -- note that clearing
I don't think this is right.
> Index: src/du.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /fetish/cu/src/du.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.224
> retrieving revision 1.225
> diff -u -p -u -r1.224 -r1.225
> --- src/du.c 4 Nov 2005 10:08:51 -0000 1.224
> +++ src/du.c 19 May 2006 12:36:18 -0000 1.225
> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
> /* du -- summarize disk usage
> - Copyright (C) 1988-1991, 1995-2005 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> + Copyright (C) 1988-1991, 1995-2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>
> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> @@ -681,7 +681,11 @@ main (int argc, char **argv)
> struct Tokens tok;
>
> /* Bit flags that control how fts works. */
> - int bit_flags = FTS_PHYSICAL | FTS_TIGHT_CYCLE_CHECK;
> + int bit_flags = FTS_TIGHT_CYCLE_CHECK;
> +
> + /* Select one of the three FTS_ options that control if/when
> + to follow a symlink. */
> + int symlink_deref_bit = FTS_PHYSICAL;
>
> /* If true, display only a total for each argument. */
> bool opt_summarize_only = false;
> @@ -803,15 +807,15 @@ main (int argc, char **argv)
> break;
>
> case 'D': /* This will eventually be 'H' (-H), too. */
> - bit_flags = FTS_COMFOLLOW;
> + symlink_deref_bit = FTS_COMFOLLOW;
> break;
Quoting the manpage:
| There are a number of options, at least one of which (either FTS_LOGICAL
| or FTS_PHYSICAL) must be specified. The options are selected by or'ing
| the following values:
so this will supposedly cause du to fail if -D is given. I just wrote
a small test for this, and it appears to be false that (exactly?) one
of FTS_{LOGICAL,PHYSICAL} must be set. The fts_{open,children,close}
all succeed. I'm going to bug manpages about this (and some other
things).
In any case, it is my understanding that FTS_COMFOLLOW is really an
independent option, and so should be handled as an bit_flag.
Justin