On 10/31/2013 01:17 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote: >> On October 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM Pádraig Brady <[email protected]> wrote: >> That all seems consistent with expectations and what we previously discussed. >> >> But... >> >> I've just now read POSIX for cp, and it states: >> >> "If the -R option was not specified, cp shall take actions based on the >> type >> and contents of the file referenced by the symbolic link, and not by the >> symbolic link itself, unless the -P option was specified." >> >> This suggests that -HL should only be significant with -R ? >> That is a bit surprising TBH. What do you think Eric? >> >> It also suggests that we should hardlink to a symlink only with -P, >> i.e. that we should AT_SYMLINK_FOLLOW unless -P is specified ? >> That's also a bit surprising, given that POSIX for ln states >> that it's implementation defined what's done if neither -P or -L is >> specified. >> I wouldn't be inclined to follow POSIX in that regard. > > I don't read the POSIX spec that way: there are 2 things to consider: > a) POSIX doesn't say a word about hard links, and > b) the -l,--link option is a GNU extension to conveniently > copy files or trees by creating hard links (only). > > I.e. if someone uses -l, then the POSIX semantics does not > apply anymore because we do not copy anymore. Whether the > ln(1) specification does apply more here is another question. > > Therefore, I think GNU cp(1) should do what makes most sense > for the user - depending on -LPH or none being used. With the > proposed patch, I think we're getting a bit closer to that.
OK cool. With that cp and ln will be more consistent with each other anyway. thanks, Pádraig.
