> It's kind of ironic that we're arguing about the POSIX compliance of 'cp
> -i' while the 'yes' command doesn't even exist in POSIX.
Not really, because this is about the 'cp -i' part rather than the 'yes n'.
Consider the latter an alias for ``while true; do echo n; done'' :-).
> 'pax', which is the POSIX replacement for 'cpio' and 'tar', has a -k
> option for not overwriting existing files. A simple
>
> pax -rwk ${files} dst/
>
> should do nicely.
That's good to know, however it does not help anyone not already
aware of the undocumented POSIX violation to avoid this gotcha.
