Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The mailing list is probably a better place for this discussion than > cc'ing lots of individuals. I'm adding bug-coreutils accordingly.
ok, killing cc: but me (not being subscribed) > >>> The following patch makes now "cp -i -f" behaves like "cp -f" > >>> instead of like "cp -i". > >>> > >>> We think that behavior is what end users would predict. > >> Thanks for the effort, but POSIX requires the current behavior: > >> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/nframe.html > >> especially step 3a, where -i must be handled before -f. > > > > humm. > > > > The problem is that: > > - one could expect -i to "win" in 'cp -f -i' and -f to win in 'cp > > -i -f' > > - if a distro define a default alias 'cp -i' for cp in order to > > prevent users to shoot themselves in the foot, it's nice to be > > able to overwrite it. > > The user can undo what the distro did, either in their startup > scripts, or with the one-shot \cp. /bin/cp and \cp are less intuitive > > I may be misreading but I've read > > http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/cp.html > > and I don't see anything that . (...) > It doesn't matter whether you specified -if or -fi; step 3a states > that if -i is in effect (regardless of -f), that you execute > 3a.i. and prompt the user prior to executing 3a.iii. of possibly > unlinking the destination from -f. indeed. > > > One other thing: make your patch against CVS head, not 5.93 > > > (5.97 is the latest stable release, and 6.1 has already been > > > released as a beta). > > > > actually, it applies fine on top of 5.93. > > That's my point - 5.93 is stale, and a patch should apply on top of > CVS head (6.1+). sorry I meant s/5.93/5.97/ _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
