At 8:38 AM -0400 6/5/02, Ryan McGuigan wrote:
>--force (-f) not cancelling the effect of -i is insanely annoying. i do
>not understand what the point of following that behavior(per POSIX) when
>most systems do not use that behavior, at least none i've used
>recently. and why should the cp command behave differently from the
>other commands?
>
>either it should be changed back, an option while building, or there
>should be another way of cancelling -i
-f actually means something distinctly different from cancelling -i.
In fact, specifying both can make sense.
I would strongly recommend another way of cancelling -i, for example
-I, --non-interactive don't prompt before overwrite
here's the patch against fileutils-4.1.8
--- old_cp.c Wed Jun 5 11:30:53 2002
+++ cp.c Wed Jun 5 11:32:50 2002
@@ -130,6 +130,7 @@
{"dereference", no_argument, NULL, 'L'},
{"force", no_argument, NULL, 'f'},
{"interactive", no_argument, NULL, 'i'},
+ {"non-interactive", no_argument, NULL, 'I'},
{"link", no_argument, NULL, 'l'},
{"no-dereference", no_argument, NULL, 'P'},
{"no-preserve", required_argument, NULL, NO_PRESERVE_ATTRIBUTES_OPTION},
@@ -186,6 +187,7 @@
-f, --force if an existing destination file cannot be\n\
opened, remove it and try again\n\
-i, --interactive prompt before overwrite\n\
+ -I, --non-interactive don't prompt before overwrite\n\
-H follow command-line symbolic links\n\
"), stdout);
fputs (_("\
@@ -849,7 +851,7 @@
we'll actually use backup_suffix_string. */
backup_suffix_string = getenv ("SIMPLE_BACKUP_SUFFIX");
- while ((c = getopt_long (argc, argv, "abdfHilLprsuvxPRS:V:",
long_opts, NULL))
+ while ((c = getopt_long (argc, argv, "abdfHiIlLprsuvxPRS:V:",
long_opts, NULL))
!= -1)
{
switch (c)
@@ -904,6 +906,10 @@
case 'i':
x.interactive = I_ASK_USER;
+ break;
+
+ case 'I':
+ x.interactive = I_UNSPECIFIED;
break;
case 'l':
_______________________________________________
Bug-fileutils mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-fileutils
