Re: Problem installing coreutils-5.2.1 over the same prefix

[Paul Eggert]

Alexandre Duret-Lutz <address@hidden> writes:

> Could you install your change on both HEAD and branch-1-8?

OK, done.

>  Paul> +         # perhaps because mv is so ancient that it does not
>  Paul> +         # support -f.
>
> Does such ancient `mv' really exist?

"mv -f" was not in 7th Edition Unix (in fact, the lack of -f is listed
under BUGS in the mv man page).  I vaguely recall running into old
systems that lacked mv -f back in the 1980s.  I'd be surprised to see
such a system in use today.  I put that comment in "just to be safe".

> The autoconf manual claims that `mv -f' is portable

I couldn't find that claim with a quick search of the CVS version of
the Autoconf manual.  Perhaps I didn't use the right regexp.

> It's used in some Automake rules

I'd say it's safe these days.

> and also right after this comment in the script:

Yes.  Possibly that workaround (which is executed only rarely) has
never been run on an ancient system lacking mv -f.