Re: Two usage examples for attribute directories.

[Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>]

Nate Diller wrote:

> On 12/8/05, *Hubert Chan* <hubert@uhoreg.ca <mailto:hubert@uhoreg.ca>>
> wrote:
>
>     On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 14:12:46 +0000, Peter Foldiak said:
>
>     [...]
>
>     > You say "author" should be an attribute but "icon.png" is not an
>     > attribute. I am not convinced they should be treated
>     differently.  The
>     > listing doesn't look ugly to me at all (just because it is long).
>
>     IMHO, putting attributes in foo/ instead of foo/@/ increases the
>     risk of
>     collisions.  e.g. let's say I have a directory that contains a file
>     named icon.png, but I want my file manager to display its icon as some
>     other file.  If all the attributes are in foo/, then the file manager
>     will read foo/icon.png as the directory's icon, which is not what I
>     want.  It would be better if I could have a directory that contains
>     icon.png, and uses foo/@/icon.png as its icon in the file manager.
>
>
> This problem is already solved.
>
> $ ls /home/nate
> icon.png
>
> $ ls -a /home/nate
> .
> ..
> .bash_rc
> icon.png
>
> so...
>
> $ls -aa /home/nate
> .
> ..
> ..icon.png
> .bash_rc
> icon.png
>
> this works for PvH's example too:
> $ ls -aa app/
> .
> ..
> ..author
> ..category
> ..contact
> ..description
> ..name
> ..version
> .config
> .default_options
> bin
> lib
> src
> var
> Makefile
> icon.png
> install.sh
>
> NATE

yup