On 01/02/2024 00:36, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 1/31/24 06:06, Pádraig Brady wrote:
To my mind the most protective option takes precedence.
That's not how POSIX works with mv -i and mv -f. The last flag wins. I
assume this is so that people can have aliases or shell scripts that
make -i the
On 1/31/24 06:06, Pádraig Brady wrote:
To my mind the most protective option takes precedence.
That's not how POSIX works with mv -i and mv -f. The last flag wins. I
assume this is so that people can have aliases or shell scripts that
make -i the default, but you can override by specifying
On 30/01/2024 18:31, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 2024-01-30 03:18, Pádraig Brady wrote:
So we now have the proposed change as:
- revert -n to old silent success behavior
- document -n as deprecated
- Leave --update=none as is (will be synonymous with -n)
- Provide --update=none-fail
On 2024-01-30 03:18, Pádraig Brady wrote:
So we now have the proposed change as:
- revert -n to old silent success behavior
- document -n as deprecated
- Leave --update=none as is (will be synonymous with -n)
- Provide --update=none-fail to diagnose and exit failure
Thanks, that's
On 29/01/2024 21:44, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 1/29/24 08:11, Pádraig Brady wrote:
Right, that's why I'm still leaning towards my proposal in the last mail.
Well, I won't insist on doing nothing; however, the proposal needs
ironing out and now's a good time to do it before installing changes.
On 1/29/24 08:11, Pádraig Brady wrote:
Right, that's why I'm still leaning towards my proposal in the last mail.
Well, I won't insist on doing nothing; however, the proposal needs
ironing out and now's a good time to do it before installing changes.
- revert to previous exit success
On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 04:11:05PM +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
You've introduced a silent incompatibility and I'm trying to find some
way to make that clear. If upstream would provide a better solution I
would certainly use it. I have despaired of there being such since your
attitude thus far
On 29/01/2024 14:01, Michael Stone wrote:
On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 11:14:14PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
I'm not sure reverting would be best. It would introduce more
confusion, and would make coreutils incompatible with FreeBSD again.
Reverting makes more sense than the current situation. I do
On Sun, Jan 28, 2024 at 11:14:14PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
I'm not sure reverting would be best. It would introduce more
confusion, and would make coreutils incompatible with FreeBSD again.
Reverting makes more sense than the current situation. I do not
understand why you seem to value
On 2024-01-28 05:22, Pádraig Brady wrote:
At this stage it seems best for us go back to the original Linux
behiavor (use case 3),
and to silently deprecate -n in docs to document the portability issues
with it.
I'm not sure reverting would be best. It would introduce more confusion,
and
On 16/12/2023 21:46, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 12/15/23 21:13, Michael Stone wrote:
On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 11:21:06AM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
Stlll, Pádraig gave a reasonable summary of why the change was made,
To clarify my summary a little, there I said that -n now _immediately_ fails.
On Sun, Dec 17, 2023 at 12:34:11AM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 2023-12-16 13:46, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
Whether the implementation is race-prone or not is an internal thing.
I wasn't referring to the internal implementation. I was referring to
cp users. With the newer Coreutils (FreeBSD)
Paul Eggert wrote on Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 11:21:06AM -0800:
> The cat is to some extent out of the bag. Unless one insists on (FreeBSD |
> coreutils 9.2-9.4), or insist on coreutils 7.1-9.1, one should not rely on
> cp -n failing or silently succeeding when the destination already exists.
> This
On 2023-12-16 13:46, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
Whether the implementation is race-prone or not is an internal thing.
I wasn't referring to the internal implementation. I was referring to cp
users. With the newer Coreutils (FreeBSD) behavior, you can reliably
write a script to do something if
On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 11:21:06AM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
Stlll, Pádraig gave a reasonable summary of why the change was made,
despite its incompatibility with previous behavior. (One thing I'd add
is that the FreeBSD behavior is inherently less race-prone.) It seemed
like a good idea at
On 2023-12-15 10:49, Michael Stone wrote:
There's no compelling reason to force this change
Well, certainly nobody compelled us at gunpoint
Stlll, Pádraig gave a reasonable summary of why the change was made,
despite its incompatibility with previous behavior. (One thing I'd add
is that
On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 06:33:00PM +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
Advantages of leaving as is:
We get consistency of "noclobber" behavior across systems / shells.
You don't, unless you ignore the coreutils/linux installed base
entirely. Essentially the current situation is that -n shouldn't be
On 15/12/2023 15:56, Michael Stone wrote:
I tend to think this was a serious mistake: it breaks the behavior of
existing scripts with no deprecation period. A stated advantage is
better compatibility with freebsd, but I don't understand why that is
more desirable than compatibility with all
18 matches
Mail list logo
