On 30/04/15 13:02, sa wrote: > Dear coreutils developers, > > > it's still common today when you can copy files somewhere but subsequent > chown() on them returns EACCES: > > NFS without strict uid/gid mapping, > CIFS with broken Unix Extensions - nowaday NAS devices, > less common filesystems like sshfs. > > When you move files to there, intuitively the operation is plain move, > but mv should be avoided because of error messages (as many as file number): > > mv: failed to preserve ownership > > Sometimes these error messages probably hide really important error > messages and hence force me to double-check: if files were actually > copied to destination and were actually deleted from source. > During years, I'm inventing, improving and distributing lines like "cp > &&rm", having developed fear for using mv. > > What do coreutils developers think about this? > Is there hope for accepting --no-preserve-ownership patch to mv?
Maybe, but the `cp ... && rm` combo give more control and isn't too awkward for this. Also it doesn't have a functional disadvantage of using extra space, as generally this is an issue between separate file systems. Also it has a functional advantage of being an atomic operation, not deleting any files unless all were copied. thanks, Pádraig.
