Lets try another realistic example:
cp -uvp ab* cde*.f* g? h/*.i? j/kl /m
What's the find | cpio invocation for that? When you come up with it, it
echo ab* cde*.f* g? h/*.i? j/kl /m | cpio ...
Messy - No, Portable - Yes.
BT - wrong. cp flattens the
On Mon, 7 May 2001 10:18:38 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lets try another realistic example:
cp -uvp ab* cde*.f* g? h/*.i? j/kl /m
What's the find | cpio invocation for that? When you come up with it, it
echo ab* cde*.f* g? h/*.i? j/kl /m | cpio ...
Messy -
On Mon, 7 May 2001 10:18:38 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lets try another realistic example:
cp -uvp ab* cde*.f* g? h/*.i? j/kl /m
What's the find | cpio invocation for that? When you come up with it, it
echo ab* cde*.f* g? h/*.i? j/kl /m | cpio ...
Messy - No,
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 06:11:56AM +0200, Cyrille Lefevre wrote:
Question is, do we want to add this to our cp?
please, what is the difference between this :
cp -Ruv mozilla mozilla-test
and that :
cd mozzila; find . | cpio -pdm ../mozzila-test
Lets try another realistic example:
cp
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Question is, do we want to add this to our cp?
I found it handy for stuff like:
please, what is the difference between this :
cp -Ruv mozilla mozilla-test
and that :
cd mozzila; find . | cpio -pdm ../mozzila-test
?
thanks.
so that my
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 09:56:09AM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
Question is, do we want to add this to our cp?
Bleh. :-)
Blah.
for i in `find /path/to/src`; do
if [ $i -nt /path/to/dst/$i ]; then
cp $i /path/to/dst/
fi
done
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:30:27 MST, David O'Brien wrote:
Do you also suggest we get rid of `more' as its functionality can be
implimented using cat and sed? I personally find this option useful
enough that I have to keep `gcp' around.
That's part of my concern. A lot of our feature creep
-On [20010426 23:27], Matt Dillon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
There is a whole lot more to doing an efficient copy then simply checking
the mtime. It's silly to try to integrate it into 'cp'. Use cpdup
instead. plug plug plug.
That's missing the point.
This is for script
:
:On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
:Matt Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
:
:MD There is a whole lot more to doing an efficient copy then simply checking
:MD the mtime. It's silly to try to integrate it into 'cp'. Use cpdup
:MD instead. plug plug plug.
:
: OK plug
Please test this further.
This adds -u to our cp, which is a reimplemented GNU feature after Jim
Mock asked me if we supported -u in our cp.
Basically cp -u compares src and dest and only overwrites if dest's
mtime src's mtime.
Only caveat which I haven't yet solved is that it still shows
You are one brave soul if the only precedent you have for this
patch is GNU cp.
Personally, I see nothing wrong with it.
With respect to how you short circuit the copy if
the mtimes are 'ok', you probably need to return a value
different than 1 so that your caller can distinquish between
a
:You are one brave soul if the only precedent you have for this
:patch is GNU cp.
:
:Personally, I see nothing wrong with it.
:
:With respect to how you short circuit the copy if
:the mtimes are 'ok', you probably need to return a value
:different than 1 so that your caller can distinquish
:You are one brave soul if the only precedent you have for this
:patch is GNU cp.
:
:Personally, I see nothing wrong with it.
The time check is broken, for one. Any adjustment to the system time
has the potential to screw up the feature. The time check must be
T1 != T2, not T1
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:26:46 -0700 (PDT)
Matt Dillon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MD There is a whole lot more to doing an efficient copy then simply checking
MD the mtime. It's silly to try to integrate it into 'cp'. Use cpdup
MD instead. plug plug plug.
OK plug away - why
14 matches
Mail list logo
