To be perfectly blunt, I'm the package maintainer and I would argue that I have a pretty good view of what users tend to need.
Both scp and sftp protocols are perfectly capable of ensuring that the remote end has written the file before returning success; they're lockstep protocols, not fire-and-forget. fuse offers no reliability improvement here. The upstream FAQ entry in question would not apply if scp were rewritten to use the sftp protocol behind the scenes, which I'm planning to work on. -- there is no 'move' equivalent for scp https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/92167 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
