The manpage of cp says
-f For each existing destination pathname, remove it and create a
new file, without prompting for confirmation, regardless of its
permissions. This option overrides any use of -i.
-i Write a prompt to the standard error output
Op Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:52:12 +0200 schreef Jan Stary h...@stare.cz:
The manpage of cp says
-f For each existing destination pathname, remove it and
create a
new file, without prompting for confirmation, regardless of its
permissions. This option overrides
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:25:17PM +0200, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
Op Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:52:12 +0200 schreef Jan Stary h...@stare.cz:
The manpage of cp says
-f For each existing destination pathname, remove it and
create a
new file, without prompting for
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Jan Stary h...@stare.cz wrote:
The manpage of cp says
-f For each existing destination pathname, remove it and create a
new file, without prompting for confirmation, regardless of its
permissions. This option overrides any
On Jun 15 17:41:08, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:25:17PM +0200, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
Op Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:52:12 +0200 schreef Jan Stary h...@stare.cz:
The manpage of cp says
-f For each existing destination pathname, remove it and
create a
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:11:37PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote:
On Jun 15 17:41:08, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:25:17PM +0200, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
Op Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:52:12 +0200 schreef Jan Stary h...@stare.cz:
The manpage of cp says
-f For
Otto Moerbeek wrote on Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:41:08PM +0200:
Posix does not say anything about the interaction of -i and -f.
I seem to dimly remember that POSIX says something about the
precedence of conflicting options in general (in general as in:
when there is no specific ruling for a
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 08:26:13PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
Otto Moerbeek wrote on Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:41:08PM +0200:
Posix does not say anything about the interaction of -i and -f.
I seem to dimly remember that POSIX says something about the
precedence of conflicting options in
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
Yes, that's the wording used for rm(1). And -i should have a similar line.
I checked net and free, they implement -i and -f as we do.
Bizarrely, I read mv where you typed rm and used that. Now I notice
you said rm. All
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 03:00:38PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
Yes, that's the wording used for rm(1). And -i should have a similar line.
I checked net and free, they implement -i and -f as we do.
Bizarrely, I read mv
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 03:00:38PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
Yes, that's the wording used for rm(1). And -i should have a similar line.
I checked net and free, they implement -i and -f as we do.
Bizarrely, I read mv
On 16 June 2011 04:32, Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
Guideline 11:
The order of different options relative to one another should not
matter, unless the options are documented as mutually-exclusive and
such an option is documented to override any incompatible options
preceding it.
IMHO
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 01:50:07PM +1000, john slee wrote:
On 16 June 2011 04:32, Otto Moerbeek o...@drijf.net wrote:
Guideline 11:
The order of different options relative to one another should not
matter, unless the options are documented as mutually-exclusive and
such an option is
13 matches
Mail list logo
