> So we have two problems:
> 1) Calling cp(1) repetitively is inefficient.
> 2) The argument list is too big for cp(1).
> Extending cp(1) will not solve (2).  Extending xargs(1) will solve both.
> So why is an extension to cp(1) being proposed?

I wasn't proposing that cp should be changed - I don't think it 
should.  I'm just guilty of using a stale subject line :-/

> Ciao,
> Sheldon.

Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>                        <brian@[uk.]FreeBSD.org>
      <http://www.Awfulhak.org>                   <brian@[uk.]OpenBSD.org>
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour !

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to