I agree. The last thing I want is a build too that thinks it knows more than I do, and replaces files that I've gone to the trouble of protecting.
If there are read only files that need to be dealt with, I believe the right way is for the appropriate files to be dealt with (chmod or whatever) by a script that runs PRIOR to invoking Ant. Glenn McAllister wrote: > > Conor MacNeill wrote: > > > Don, > > > > Currently, overwrite means to overwrite the file even if the destination > > file is newer, not to overwrite it at all costs. I am a little wary about > > overwriting read-only files. How do other people feel about this? > > I'm a big -1 on this. Usually you don't mark a file read-only unless you have > a good reason to; arbirarily overwriting it by getting around the OS file > protection mechanism is *not* a good idea. > > > > > > > Conor > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Don Ferguson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 11:41 AM > > Subject: [PATCH] copy with overwrite > > > > > Under NT, attempts to copy over a read-only file raises a > > > java.io.FileNotFoundException, even with the overwrite flag > > > on. This patch causes the file to first be deleted if overwrite > > > is true, and if the destination file cannot be written. > > >
