Feature #4057
closed
FileUtils.copy with FIFOs and Special Devices
Description
=begin
In http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/repositories/diff/ruby-19?rev=6747 support for copying FIFOs and special devices was added to FileUtils.copy, and the same code exists in trunk. It relies on the existence of File.mknod and File.mkfifo. According to git's "pickaxe", those methods have never existed. Various patches to add this functionality have been sent to ruby-core, but in http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/144168 matz rejected the idea. So, presumably, either these checks should be removed from FileUtils such that it raises an exception when a special device is encountered, or we should replace them with calls to the mknod/mkfifo commands. For me, the following just hangs:
run@paint:~$ mkfifo fifo
run@paint:~$ ruby -rfileutils -e 'FileUtils.copy("fifo", "lifo")'
=end
Updated by naruse (Yui NARUSE) almost 14 years ago
- Tracker changed from Bug to Feature
That code seems a preparation of feature extension about FIFOs.
Updated by akr (Akira Tanaka) about 13 years ago
- Description updated (diff)
I feel following hang is bad behavior.
% mkfifo p
% ruby -v -rfileutils -e 'FileUtils.copy "p", "p2"'
ruby 2.0.0dev (2012-03-16 trunk 35049) [x86_64-linux]
...hang...
However cp also hangs.
% cp p p2
..hang...
cp -a don't hang though.
Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) about 13 years ago
- Assignee set to mame (Yusuke Endoh)
- Status changed from Open to Assigned
Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) about 13 years ago
- Status changed from Assigned to Rejected
Hello,
Runpaint, I think you meant FileUtils.copy_entry.
$ mkfifo fifo
$ ruby -rfileutils -e 'FileUtils.copy_entry("fifo", "lifo")'
...:in `copy': cannot handle FIFO (RuntimeError)
So,
presumably, either these checks should be removed from FileUtils such that
it raises an exception when a special device is encountered, or we should
replace them with calls to themknod/mkfifocommands.
I object to replacing it.
Matz said "mknod and mkfifo are not ubiquitous". The same is true
for the commands.
I also object to removing the check.
I don't think there are any actual problems in the current behavior.
Though I don't recommend strongly, a user can change the behavior by
just defining File.mkfifo method.
Removing the check brings disadvantage but no advantage, I think.
So, I close this ticket as Rejected.
If you know any actual problem about the current behavior, please
reopen this ticket.
Thanks,
--
Yusuke Endoh [email protected]