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: Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
Subject: Re: Bug#160849: coreutils: bug report for GNU Core Utils
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:19:47 +0200 (CEST)

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Jim Meyering wrote:

Eric Blake <address@hidden> wrote:

According to Jim Meyering on 6/24/2005 1:58 AM:
Now, the help output for --reply looks like this:

      --reply={yes,no,query}   specify how to handle the prompt about an
                                 existing destination file.  Note that
                                 --reply=no has an effect only when mv
                                 would prompt without -i or equivalent, i.e.,
                                 when a destination file exists and is not
                                 writable, standard input is a terminal, and
                                 no -f (or equivalent) option is specified

That wording is a bit awkward.  How about this instead:
Note that --reply=no has an effect only when mv would prompt, either when
-i is present, or for the combination of a destination file exists, is not
writable, standard input is a terminal, and -f (or equivalent) is not present

Thanks, but that's not accurate, since --reply=no has no effect
if it *precedes* a -i (aka --reply=query) option, and if it
follows -i, then the -i is disregarded.

What I was trying to say is that given a `mv' command that would
prompt even though it specified neither -i (--interactive)
or the equivalent --reply=query, rerunning that command with
--reply=no makes mv suppress the prompt and act as if it had
been issued and declined.

I too would like improved wording.

Is this just the current working or the expected behaviour?

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

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'.


Kind regards

--
                                Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
Failure is not an option. It comes bundled with your Microsoft product.
 (Ferenc Mantfeld)




reply via email to

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