bug-coreutils
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bug#160849: coreutils: bug report for GNU Core Utils


From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: Bug#160849: coreutils: bug report for GNU Core Utils
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:49:24 +0200

"Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum" <address@hidden> wrote:
...
> Is this just the current working or the expected behaviour?

It is the intended behavior.

> In my opinion the --reply=no would make much more sense if i could use it
> in scripts to avoid overwriting files.
>
> To quote the current manpage:
>
>        --reply={yes,no,query}
>               specify how to handle the prompt about an existing
>               destination file

IMHO, the above is not inaccurate -- but it's obviously not clear,
either :)  It says how to handle a *prompt* about an existing
destination file.  The prompt in question (not the prompt for -i)
appears only under the conditions mentioned in my addition.
It's important to realize that if you specify `-i --reply=no',
it's equivalent to just `--reply=no', hence there will be no
prompts due to the `-i' option.  Yes, I admit it is rather twisted.

> This would apply to any existing file, not just for "not writable",
> "stdin" or a terminal. So the correct bugfix should not a new manpage
> chapter but instead a improved behaviour of 'mv'.

IMHO, you're asking for a new feature (don't overwrite any existing
file and don't prompt about it either).




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]