jeffaco
commented
6 years ago I think the best way to handle this is to have a -quote feature. A -quote feature would allow you to add any "odd-ball" parameters that you wanted, and keeps me out of the business of supporting one-off parameters for an odd request here and there.
For sure, the standard parameters will be supported as they are today. But -quote would allow you to add something that was not typical. So, in your example, you might do something like:
-quote "-fossels -resurrect"Those would then be added on the command line. I believe that would handle this issue, as well as prune with -exhaustive.
I'll look at adding this. Or if you'd like, you're welcome to submit a PR for such a capability.
Hi, @jeffaco, I have just learned about your tool and it works great! Thanks a lot. I have a bunch of suggestions/questions which I will split in separate issues.
The first one is passing additional parameters to
check. In my environment I have an sftp storage and multitude of clients with not very good connection, and that results in interrupted uploads, so usually I runprune -exhaustive, which in turn some times results in chunks fossilized during a revision upload. And that is not an issue, because such chunks are normally restored withcheck -fossils -resurrect. In your tool, however, there are no additional options forcheckcommand yet, and running it generates a missing chunk error message. Could you please add an option to pass-fossils -resurrectto duplicacy while checking?