"Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> Is this just the current working or the expected behaviour?
It is the intended behavior.
> In my opinion the --reply=no would make much more sense if i could use it
> in scripts to avoid overwriting files.
>
> To quote the current manpage:
>
> --reply={yes,no,query}
> specify how to handle the prompt about an existing
> destination file
IMHO, the above is not inaccurate -- but it's obviously not clear,
either :) It says how to handle a *prompt* about an existing
destination file. The prompt in question (not the prompt for -i)
appears only under the conditions mentioned in my addition.
It's important to realize that if you specify `-i --reply=no',
it's equivalent to just `--reply=no', hence there will be no
prompts due to the `-i' option. Yes, I admit it is rather twisted.
> This would apply to any existing file, not just for "not writable",
> "stdin" or a terminal. So the correct bugfix should not a new manpage
> chapter but instead a improved behaviour of 'mv'.
IMHO, you're asking for a new feature (don't overwrite any existing
file and don't prompt about it either).
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
