On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 13:43, Jim Meyering <[email protected]> wrote: > Sami Kerola wrote: >> Either this is bug or an unintuitive feature. >> >> s...@lelux ~/foo touch src dest >> s...@lelux ~/foo chmod g-rwx src >> s...@lelux ~/foo chmod g+rwx dest >> s...@lelux ~/foo ls -l >> total 0 >> -rw-rwxr-- 1 sake sake 0 2009-03-30 13:16 dest >> -rw----r-- 1 sake sake 0 2009-03-30 13:16 src >> s...@lelux ~/foo cp --force --backup=t src dest >> s...@lelux ~/foo ls -l >> total 0 >> -rw----r-- 1 sake sake 0 2009-03-30 13:16 dest >> -rw-rwxr-- 1 sake sake 0 2009-03-30 13:16 dest.~1~ >> -rw----r-- 1 sake sake 0 2009-03-30 13:16 src >> >> In case this is bug the patch is good. In case of feature it should be >> modified to make sure that permissions are different. > > It's a feature. > With --backup, an existing destination is first moved aside (renamed), > and thus the backup retains all attributes. That's the idea of making a > backup, after all: preserve as much initial state as possible.
I give great value for backups, but still I would like to see new and old destination files to have same permissions. Of course when --preserve is specified expectation is changed; source permission should appear for the new file. Am I only one thinking this way? -- Sami Kerola http://www.iki.fi/kerolasa/ _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
