On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 23:07 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > >> What is it the benefit over fdupes, rdfind, ...? > > ..., hardlink, ... > finddup from perforate After a quick evaluation of the various "find dupe files" tools, I was attracted to try duff because: 1. It looked easier to use than the others. 2. This quote from its website[1] was exactly what I was looking for: "Note that duff itself never modifies any files, but it's designed to play nice with tools that do." The other dupe cleaner utilities left me worried that they might trash something important if I got my command line options wrong or forgot a --dry-run flag. > > Was thinking about packaging it myself already, so I may also sponsor > > Kamal's package when it's ready. Thanks Axel, but I'm a DD myself, so won't need a sponsor. > You just listed the third duplicate (and me no. 4), and still go blind > right on "ohoh, i sponsor it". Why? I hope its conditional on it being > vastly better than any of the others (speed, functionality, ...) In my humble opinion, that would be an unreasonable pre-condition for inclusion in Debian. Our standard for inclusion should not be that a new package must be "vastly better" than other similar packages. That would deny a new package the opportunity to build a user base and possibly someday evolve to become the "vastly better" alternative itself. -Kamal kamal@whence.com kamal@debian.org [1] http://duff.sourceforge.net/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part