On 3/20/24 15:53, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
$ echo 1 > a
$ mkdir d
$ echo 2 > d/a
$ src/mv -v --exchange a a a d
renamed 'a' -> 'd/a'
renamed 'a' -> 'd/a'
renamed 'a' -> 'd/a'
$ cat a
2
$ src/mv -v --exchange a a a d
renamed 'a' -> 'd/a'
renamed 'a' -> 'd/a'
On 3/20/24 14:43, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> On 3/17/24 07:10, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Now, extending "exchange" to more arguments is confusing and the
> use is not intuitive:
>mv -v --exchange a b c d
It's also pointless. An atomic exchange on more than 2 files ISN'T ATOMIC.
That's why I didn't
On 3/20/24 21:56, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 3/20/24 12:43, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
This stems from the fact that although mv(1) is a userland frontend
for renameat(2), the user interface is different:
while renameat(2) deals exactly with 2 operands, mv(1) has always
been able to work on more
On 3/17/24 04:32, Pádraig Brady wrote:
I think the --no-copy situation is brittle, as scripts not using it now
would be atomic, but then if we ever supported cross fs swaps
it may become non atomic. I'd at least doc with a line in the --exchange
description in usage() to say something like:
On 3/20/24 12:43, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
This stems from the fact that although mv(1) is a userland frontend
for renameat(2), the user interface is different:
while renameat(2) deals exactly with 2 operands, mv(1) has always
been able to work on more arguments.
Yes, that's mv's original sin,
On 3/17/24 07:10, Paul Eggert wrote:
Although removing that "mv --swap" implementation was a win, I don't
think we can simply delegate this to util-linux's exch command.
I still have some headache adding this.
This stems from the fact that although mv(1) is a userland frontend
for
On 16/12/2011 16:29, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Hi,
chown(1) has a -h option by which it affects symlinks directly rather
than the pointed-to file. The bonus side effect is that the
pointed-to files don't get changed in any way, which is kinda welcome
if you attempt to "fix" permissions/ownership in
On 28/03/2012 21:28, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 03/28/2012 01:13 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
$ ./chmod u+w f
./chmod: changing permissions of 'f': Operation not supported
Yeouch. I undid the change for now.
Hmm, why did "make check" work for me?
I'll have to investigate later, alas.
Patch
