Re: dd status output

2014-02-10 Thread Theo de Raadt
>> I know and feel the same way. But I consider 2>/dev/null in shell >> scripts more evil. Instead of inventing something new, I used GNU. > >Perhaps we should ask ourselves the question why this gets printed on >stderr instead of stdout? Well, moving the output to stdout now would create a more

Re: dd status output

2014-02-10 Thread Theo de Raadt
I would completely support the addition of these options to dd.

Re: dd status output

2014-02-09 Thread Dmitrij D. Czarkoff
Mark Kettenis said: > Perhaps we should ask ourselves the question why this gets printed on > stderr instead of stdout? FWIW this is how it is defined in POSIX. -- Dmitrij D. Czarkoff

Re: dd status output

2014-02-09 Thread Alexander Hall
On February 9, 2014 1:51:30 PM CET, Mark Kettenis wrote: >> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:57:40 +0100 >> From: Alexander Bluhm >> >> On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 12:21:35PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: >> > > Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:08:04 +0100 >> > > From: Alexander Bluhm >> > > >> > > I would like

Re: dd status output

2014-02-09 Thread Alexander Bluhm
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 01:51:30PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > Perhaps we should ask ourselves the question why this gets printed on > stderr instead of stdout? Per default dd writes the file data to stdout already.

Re: dd status output

2014-02-09 Thread Mark Kettenis
> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:57:40 +0100 > From: Alexander Bluhm > > On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 12:21:35PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:08:04 +0100 > > > From: Alexander Bluhm > > > > > > I would like to get rid of some 2>/dev/null. > > > Do we want the status=... featu

Re: dd status output

2014-02-09 Thread Alexander Bluhm
On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 12:21:35PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:08:04 +0100 > > From: Alexander Bluhm > > > > I would like to get rid of some 2>/dev/null. > > Do we want the status=... feature in OpenBSD? > > As a general rule we don't want these non-portable extensio

Re: dd status output

2014-02-09 Thread Mark Kettenis
> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 12:08:04 +0100 > From: Alexander Bluhm > > Hi, > > Our dd always prints these status lines to stderr after transfer. > 2+0 records in > 2+0 records out > 1024 bytes transferred in 0.000 secs (39384615 bytes/sec) > > The output is annoying in some situations, so people

dd status output

2014-02-09 Thread Alexander Bluhm
Hi, Our dd always prints these status lines to stderr after transfer. 2+0 records in 2+0 records out 1024 bytes transferred in 0.000 secs (39384615 bytes/sec) The output is annoying in some situations, so people redirect stderr to /dev/null. This approach also suppresses the error messages and