Subject: Re: bin/32785 [dM] du not terabyte-clean
To: None <>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 07/26/2006 02:56:41
> I think the change is fine.  However I'm wondering if it wouldn't be
> better to somehow version the _ftsent structure.  I doubt that du
> will be the only directory-walking application that will need to deal
> with 64-bit values.

That sounds plausible.  But I see no need to version FTSENT.  As long
as the existing fields remain valid and at the same offsets, we can add
all the new fields we like.  We can even publicize the new fields.
After all, the interface does not include its clients ever allocating

Maybe add fts_qnumber, or fts_uqnumber, or some such?

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B