Re: Hardlink sub-directories and files

Date	2011-08-03 23:54 +0200
From	Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de>
Subject	Re: Hardlink sub-directories and files
References	(2 earlier) <CAGGBd_qm3_wamKNv2LW5giYKmMpyHFoo=Y-8kXZZLmxPPk3G3A@mail.gmail.com> <4E391933.6070603@jollybox.de> <CAGGBd_rP0UDpcE7GK21Bw638anZWfpGBH4mdXyvBh9SckBCpaQ@mail.gmail.com> <4E399832.3090009@jollybox.de> <CAGGBd_oGdCdOAd90qSedKKn4an-5URUvJwompBd0TWu=j-b+OQ@mail.gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.1865.1312408432.1164.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On 03/08/11 23:25, Dan Stromberg wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de
> <mailto:t@jollybox.de>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     > Interesting.  Of course, it's probably readily available to you.  What
>     > *ix are you seeing that doesn't include cpio by default?
> 
>     Arch Linux - the base install is quite minimal. I just discovered that I
>     have a program called bsdcpio which is used by mkinitcpio (and possibly
>     other system scripts); no need for the GNU cpio. Curious.
> 
> 
> I guess that makes some sense.  If you want to really strip down an
> install, removing cpio is a good candidate since it duplicates what's in
> tar, and tar is more popular - especially for interactive use.
> 
>>     Which implementations of cp don't implement -R and -l?
>>
>>
>> Probably most of them, except GNU and newer BSD.
> 
>     Okay. While GNU libc manuals usually document how portable functions are
>     in detail, that's not true for the GNU coreutils manuals.
> 
> 
> I don't think cpio is in GNU coreutils.  Also, I think GNU cpio is a
> reimplementation, not the original.

Indeed. But cp is in the coreutils, and that was what we were talking about.

As for GNU cpio, that's simply what /usr/bin/cpio, if present, is
expected to be on a GNU/Linux system.

> 
> cpio's been around since PWB/Unix, which sits between 6th Edition Unix
> and 7th Edition.  It should be in just about everything, unless a
> vendor/distributor got pretty zealous about cutting duplicate utilities.
>

Thread

Hardlink sub-directories and files loial <jldunn2000@gmail.com> - 2011-08-02 02:32 -0700
  Re: Hardlink sub-directories and files Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2011-08-02 12:01 +0200
  Re: Hardlink sub-directories and files Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> - 2011-08-02 12:13 +0200
  Re: Hardlink sub-directories and files Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2011-08-02 06:17 -0500
  Re: Hardlink sub-directories and files Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2011-08-02 21:46 -0700
  Re: Hardlink sub-directories and files Kushal Kumaran <kushal.kumaran+python@gmail.com> - 2011-08-03 12:02 +0530
    Re: Hardlink sub-directories and files Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2011-08-03 14:22 +0000
      Re: Hardlink sub-directories and files Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> - 2011-08-03 17:08 +0200
      Re: Hardlink sub-directories and files Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> - 2011-08-03 12:57 -0700
  Re: Hardlink sub-directories and files Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-08-03 08:04 +0100
  Re: Hardlink sub-directories and files Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> - 2011-08-03 11:47 +0200
  Re: Hardlink sub-directories and files Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> - 2011-08-03 20:49 +0200
  Re: Hardlink sub-directories and files Thomas Jollans <t@jollybox.de> - 2011-08-03 23:54 +0200
  Re: Hardlink sub-directories and files Alexander Gattin <xrgtn@yandex.ru> - 2011-08-08 10:07 +0300

csiph-web