Re: [Bashburn-info] DANGER, DANGER Will Robinson... we have a big issue

[Steven W. O. <st...@sy...>]

On Tuesday, Sep 2nd 2008 at 10:35 -0000, quoth Nick Warne:

=>On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:17:26 +0100
=>Nick Warne <ni...@uk...> wrote:
=>
=>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:12:59 +0100
=>> Nick Warne <ni...@uk...> wrote:
=>> 
=>> > > SOOOO, it looks like if you change something the .bashburnrc file
=>> > > gets trashed, and BB cannot then write out a new one... {bonk}
=>> > > 
=>> > > If .bashburnrc already exists, you do not see this issue.
=>> > > 
=>> > > So move your .bashburnrc out the way and start BB.
=>> > > 
=>> > > Nick
=>> > 
=>> > OK, fixed.  Committed.
=>> 
=>> Not fixed :-(  .bashburnrc doesn't keep changes now.  At least I can
=>> start it :-)
=>
=>OK, fixed now.  Committed.
=>
=>BTW, should the bbtempfile be created in the directory where the user
=>starts BB?  Should it not be in /tmp/ ?

It could be in /tmp but it really doesn't matter:

1. We cp then rm instead of mv. If we did an mv then we might have to 
worry if the directory that the tmpfile was in was in a different 
partition than the current dir.

2. The size of the file is measured in O(<1k) so it doesn't matter from 
that end either.

The important thing is that mktemp should actually be given a template for 
what the file should be called. If there's a problem that needs to be 
debugged, then we know which file to look at.

-- 
Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have  .0.
happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ ..0
Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- 000
individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question?
steveo at syslang.net