[<<]Message[>>]    [<<]Author[>>]    [<<]Subject[>>]    [<<]Thread[>>]

Number   :  3673
Date     :  2003-02-10
Author   :  jamesvmerrill
Subject  :  Re: /Fo option in 2.82.8d
Size(KB) :  3


Just FYI, I think there's another (not very important) bug. I went 
ahead and ran my line to clone a drive (what's below was of course 
one line but the web message input box won't let me join it together 
for some reason):

xxcopy .\ j:\c5050 /clone /PB /v2 /tca /tcc 
/oAXXCOPY.MSG /oS2 /oF0 /oP2 /oX2 /oD2 /FoXXCOPY.LST

and things mostly did what I wanted and expected. However, within 
the parameter dump in the XXCOPY.MSG file was this:

[begin excerpt]
File name display and save ----------------
[x] /F0 Displays source file name only
[ ] /F Displays full source and destination file names
[x] /Fo Displays the list of files copied and saves it to a file
[end excerpt]

but the XXCOPY.LST file ended up with lines of the form

U:\filename -> J:\c5050\filename

as if /F (not /F0) had been specified. Next time, if I want only the 
source filename, I'll specify /F0 -- despite the parameter info in 
XXCOPY.MSG it was doing source & dest names.

--- In xxcopy@yahoogroups.com, Kan Yabumoto  wrote:
> 
> James:
> 
> You just reported a bug. The third line should have a check
> mark as follows:
> 
> File name display and save ----------------
> [x] /F0 Displays source file name only
> [ ] /F Displays full source and destination file names
> [x] /Fo Displays the list of files copied and saves it to a 
file
> 
> The /Fo switch was created as an extension of the /F switch
> (which was inherited from XCOPY) and we put them in the same
> category. But, certainly /Fo is more useful one in most cases.
> Although /Fo is grouped in the same area of the help (/?)
> display, it is now treated very much an independent function
> from /F and /F0 switch (which exists as a XCOPY-compatible
> feature).
> 
> I believe the /Fo function is working and the bug is simply
> in the output of the /Fo /? combination (a relatively minor,
> but mislealing bug). We will fix that bug in the next release.
> 
> Kan Yabumoto
> =============================================================
> 
> At 2003-02-08 21:32, you wrote:
> >There is a suggestion in the Help (in the discussion of the /o
> >options) to avoid having the list of copied filenames appear in the
> >log file (so that errors and warnings aren't overwhelmed). The
> >suggestion was to use /F to get a separate list of copied files.
> >
> >The help says that "/Fo" will get the file list written to a
> >different file than the /oA log file. But if I use /? to see what
> >my /Fo line does, I get this:
> >
> >[start copy of DOS prompt interaction]
> >U:\>xxcopy /Fotest.xxx /?
> >
> >XXCOPY == Pro Edition == Ver 2.82.8d (c)1995-2003 Pixelab, 
Inc.
> >
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >Detailed Switch Parameters
> >File name display and save ----------------
> > [x] /F0 Displays source file name only
> > [ ] /F Displays full source and destination file names
> > [ ] /Fo Displays the list of files copied and saves it to a 
file
> >------------------------------------------------------------
> >[end copy of DOS prompt interaction]
> >
> >Either the /? option isn't working or /Fo doesn't do what I want.
> >
> >Perhaps I don't need the list of copied files (as I do my
> >first /CLONE the target directory is what got copied) but I was
> >surprised that my /Fo spec seems to be being ignored.
> >
> >Your thoughts? Thanks.



This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive.
The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.