Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ...

2006-10-13 Thread Jim Meyering
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I've tried out the CVS version of findutils+gnulib, and it does indeed >> seem to fix the problem with inode-less filesystems, in addition to >> using noticably less system time. >> >> I've also found that the -x

Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ...

2006-10-13 Thread Jim Meyering
Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've tried out the CVS version of findutils+gnulib, and it does indeed > seem to fix the problem with inode-less filesystems, in addition to > using noticably less system time. > > I've also found that the -xdev option of find no longer works: it > output

Re: fts vs. simulated-inode file systems: FUSE-based, FAT, smbfs, cifs, ...

2006-10-13 Thread Miklos Szeredi
Hi, I've tried out the CVS version of findutils+gnulib, and it does indeed seem to fix the problem with inode-less filesystems, in addition to using noticably less system time. I've also found that the -xdev option of find no longer works: it outputs just a single line for the base directory. Lo