On 25 Jan 2023 01:07, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 2023-01-24 17:20, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > i'd like to require that the mv be > > atomic when relocating a directory, and if it isn't, fallback to other > > logic > > Calling the new option "--one-file-system" sounds a bit wrong, as > --one-file-system is for programs like 'du' and 'cp' and causes them to > not cross a file system boundary when recursing - something that 'mv' > could also do (when it falls back on copying), but which is a different > thing than what you're asking for. > > How about if we call the new option --no-copy instead? Something like > the attached incomplete patch, say. (It needs more documentation and > ideally a test case.)
either works for me, thanks should there be a `--copy` flag to be able to undo `--no-copy` ? > --- a/src/copy.c > +++ b/src/copy.c > @@ -2617,7 +2617,7 @@ copy_internal (char const *src_name, char const > *dst_name, > where you'd replace '18' with the integer in parentheses that > was output from the perl one-liner above. > If necessary, of course, change '/tmp' to some other directory. */ > - if (rename_errno != EXDEV) > + if (rename_errno != EXDEV || x->no_copy) personally i always argue against using negative variable names. it's hard to reason about, and reads like awkward english which requires multiple scans to convince myself that it's correct. but i rarely work on the coreutils code, so feel free to ignore. -mike
