On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 04:21:04PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 04:14:04PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>Ok. Given that 'cp' was an acceptable fallback in the original version >>of the above script, I wonder why 'cp' wasn't used instead of creating >>a shell script wrapper. > >Because it is desirable to leave the tools where they were:
Except that "cp" is already used as a fallback for when "ln" doesn't work. If the tool is likely not to work after a "cp" then shouldn't the fallback condition be to always create a shell script (or .bat file)? cgf
