Re: inotify-aware tail replacement

[Chris Adams <cmadams hiwaay net>]

Once upon a time, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes virtuousgeek org> said:
> On Thursday, December 06, 2007 1:38 pm Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Is there any reason the user should *care* about the implementation
> > of tail -f?
> 
> Well, the manpage says -f is affected by the sleep argument, so it's 
> conceivable that there are scripts depending on that behavior...

That's already a coreutils extension (e.g. not in SUS, not on other OSes
I spot-checked), so I don't think anythink would hurt by just changing
-f behavior (maybe if -s is specified automatically fall-back to the old
behavior).

-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams hiwaay net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.