Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/10/19/10:53:26
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 11:33:09AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Oct 18 17:19, Brian Dessent wrote:
>> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>
>> > I don't think it's necessary. Since sync is a noop, it doesn't hurt
>> > to call it. I would go a step further. Just omit sync from the
>> > Cygwin release of coreutils.
>>
>> Perhaps it should be linked to /bin/true on the off chance that if some
>> script wants to call the sync command, it will continue to work. If a
>> symlink is used it would even go a bit further to underline the fact
>> that it's a no-op if someone lists it with ls -l - "this always returns
>> true, it does nothing."
>
>That sounds like a good idea to me.
I don't see why having sync.exe a symlink (which won't work in a .bat
file) is a big win over having it be a no-op. I don't think anyone is
going to actually notice if sync works or not when they call it. Anyone
who relies on the behavior of sync is sort of skating on thin ice anyway
aren't they?
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -