I suggested I'm just watching at the behavior of the mv on Open Indiana and it seems to get that it always behave like a sequential cp + rm despite the presence of two different fs. And that it sounds safer after all..
> -Dan > > ------ > bsd.gaoxio.com - Repo: https://code.5mode.com > > Please reply to the mailing-list, leveraging technical stuff. > > 17 ago 2025 14:45:01 Ingo Schwarze <schwa...@usta.de>: > >> Hello, >> >> [ quotations reordered ] >> >> dan wrote on Sun, Aug 17, 2025 at 10:47:08AM +0200: >> >>> I got to wonder about a sane move: >>> mv source dest like a *macro* for cp + rm >> >> $ man -M /usr/share/man -s 1 -k '\<move\>' >> mv(1) - move files >> >> $ man mv >> [...] >> Should the rename(2) call fail because the source and destination are on >> different file systems, mv will imitate cp(1) and rm(1) to accomplish the >> move. The effect is equivalent to: >> >> $ rm -df -- destination_path && \ >> cp -PRp -- source destination_path && \ >> rm -rf -- source >> >> So unless i completely misunderstand what you are looking for, >> this is more or less exactly it. >> >>> Surely more safe than having partial files popping up here or there. >> >> Not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but maybe something >> like the CAVEATS in mv(1)? >> >>> I'm not sure the topic is completely new.. >> >> Indeed. >> >> $ man mv | grep -A 1 ^H >> HISTORY >> A mv command appeared in Version 1 AT&T UNIX. >> >> So it looks like your suggestion was implemented fifty-four years ago. >> >> The Version 1 Unix manual listed Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie >> as the code owners of the mv(1) program. >> >> Please learn how to use the tools that come with the system. >> Searching the manuals is not a bad startinmg point. >> >> Yours, >> Ingo -Dan ------ bsd.gaoxio.com - Repo: https://code.5mode.com Please reply to the mailing-list, leveraging technical stuff.
