Closed alexhunsley closed 5 years ago
Hello Alex,
Good catch :)
This seems to me as the intended behaviour as the directory is not technically empty.
I wonder if such an option would be useful as that kind of situation should not arise very often: if you want to exclude all files from a directory, why would you want to include the directory itself? (also, it would be re-included once you decide to -at least- re-include one of those excluded files) That would probably complexify fpart code for a use case that is not very clear to me. Do you have an explicit use case for such an option ?
(meanwhile, an ugly workaround would be to create a .keepme file in such directories)
Best regards, Ganael.
if you want to exclude all files from a directory, why would you want to include the directory itself?
It's legitimate to want to preserve empty directories where they exist. Sometimes the existence of a directory has significance, even if empty.
Btw, I don't want want to exclude all files from a directory, only some kinds. It just so happens that I have some directories in an Xcode project that are empty (beyond my control!) that must be preserved, but can contain a .DS_Store file, which is automatically created by Mac OS, and which I ignore.
In effect, I don't care about .DS_Store files and want to ignore them, but I can't do that currently, because doing that makes fpart unusable for me.
re: the .keepme file - is this something fpart already does? I'm not keen on that, though. I don't want my source data to change in order to cater to a tool that is used on it; doing that would mean the tool has become intrusive. It's affected my actual data. I don't want to get into writing scripts to put .keepme files into empty dirs.
Cheers, Alex
Hello Alex,
OK, I see, thanks for the use case and clarifications.
I'll see what can be done here... I am a bit busy right now, stay tuned :)
Hello Alex,
The following commit fixes the situation : https://github.com/martymac/fpart/commit/c317f9fe95c509314a10c9cb24c1227a662f6336
I now exclude files earlier, which have the following consequences :
IMHO, this is much clearer than what was made previously.
Thanks a lot for your report !
Thanks so much for making this change!
For example, suppose I run
fpart -z
against the following directory structure on disk, and I'm ignoring files calledThumbs.db
:The partition files that result will have no mention of directoryB, only directoryA.
Should a folder containing only ignored files should be considered an empty folder, rather than a non-existent folder? Otherwise the existence of ignored files actually changes the output of
fpart -z
, which doesn't seem to make sense.If this is expected behaviour, any chance of adding a flag that means "regard directories with only ignored files as empty directories"?