Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Could you install your change on both HEAD and branch-1-8?
OK, done. > Paul> + # perhaps because mv is so ancient that it does not > Paul> + # support -f. > > Does such ancient `mv' really exist? "mv -f" was not in 7th Edition Unix (in fact, the lack of -f is listed under BUGS in the mv man page). I vaguely recall running into old systems that lacked mv -f back in the 1980s. I'd be surprised to see such a system in use today. I put that comment in "just to be safe". > The autoconf manual claims that `mv -f' is portable I couldn't find that claim with a quick search of the CVS version of the Autoconf manual. Perhaps I didn't use the right regexp. > It's used in some Automake rules I'd say it's safe these days. > and also right after this comment in the script: Yes. Possibly that workaround (which is executed only rarely) has never been run on an ancient system lacking mv -f. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
