On Nov 1, 2008, at 5:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder why 'mv' is not allowed to act on directories. I found
somewhere this argument:
----
What should mv do to a `tree' that resides on multiple file servers?
If you can't do something right, sometimes it's not worth doing at
all.
-rob
but this doesn't go well in my ears when put alongside with the
existence of recursive rm ('rm -r').
There is dircp (in tar(1)) for moving trees around, or the long-form
" @{cd fromdir && tar cp .} | @{cd todir && tar xT} ", if you prefer.
Directories in Plan 9 are files. Sometimes synthetic files, unions of
two or more trees. Rob Pike's somewhat gnomic explanation makes
perfect sense, especially if you read about exactly what mv(1) will
and won't do to a directory.
I am 100% behind any effort to uncover bugs and inconsistencies and
make the system better. But "behavior deviates from the similarly-
named command in lunix" cannot be the definition of "bug."
Again, "What should mv do to a tree that resides on multiple file
servers?"
-Josh
