On Sun, Mar 02, 2008 at 09:39:43AM -0800, Rob Browning wrote:
Both of these just don't seem right. Take a look at "zum" in the
perforate package; that's probably a better starting place than either
dd or cp.
Hmm, I hadn't seen perforate, but it appears that zum, like cp,
requires two copies of the file, at least temporarily.
Yes, but I think it makes more sense to add this into a utility
designed to make things sparse than to make cp copy stdin to stdout. And
I'm not sure how well the idea of making output sparse would interact
with dd, which is designed around the idea of working a block at a time
and which has very strict requirements about how to handle and report
errors. I'm sure patches would be considered upstream, but I'm not sure
that a clean patch would be possible.
Mike Stone
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
