Richard Dawe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JT Williams wrote:
>>
>> -: : "* cp's -f option no longer cancels the effect of --interactive (-i)
>> -: : (per POSIX)"
>> -:
>> -: Ouch. So how do we override "-i"?
There's a relatively new option just for that.
It was added in 4.1.1. Here's the NEWS entry:
* mv and cp accept a new option: --reply={yes,no,query}; provides a consistent
mechanism to control whether one is prompted about certain existing
destination files. Note that cp's and mv's -f options don't have the
same meaning: cp's -f option no longer merely turns off `-i'.
and here's the --help entry:
--reply={yes,no,query} specify how to handle the prompt about an
existing destination file
>> Ouch, indeed. And why only cp? mv -i can still be overridden.
POSIX requires that cp's -f do this and only this:
-f, --force if an existing destination file cannot be
opened, remove it and try again
POSIX requires that mv's -f override mv's -i.
> I don't know why it's only cp. I had a quick look at draft 7 of the Austin
In the sections for cp and mv (I search for `cp - ' and `mv - ' in d7text.txt),
it's pretty clear that the two -f options are supposed to do different things.
> Group's work, which became part of the new POSIX standard. I can't see where
> the behaviour of cp, mv is described. I've CC'd bug-fileutils. Hopefully
> someone on that list can answer your question.
...
_______________________________________________
Bug-fileutils mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-fileutils
