[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: cp preserves mode with --no-preserve=mode

From: Ondrej Oprala
Subject: Re: cp preserves mode with --no-preserve=mode
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:07:31 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1

On 09/22/2012 11:17 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
Ondrej Oprala wrote:

On 08/07/2012 05:37 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 08/07/2012 05:01 PM, Ondrej Oprala wrote:
Hi, I've renamed the variable to be more hinting of it's purpose
and --no-preserve=mode should now work properly with directories
as well.
Thanks, that looks good ... maybe the directory case deserves to
be added to the test. Minor nit: the change in copy_internal() is
missing in the commit log.
I'm sure that Padraig/Jim will add both when committing.

BTW: Interestingly, the TODO entry mentioned "--no-preserve=X"
to be buggy:

-cp --no-preserve=X should not attempt to preserve attribute X
-  reported by Andreas Schwab
but in fact, all the modes (t,o,l,c, and x) but "mode"
have already been working. ;-)

Have a nice day,
Hi, I've amended the commit log and added a test for directories.
Thanks again for your work on this.
Sorry it took so long for me to get back to it.

I've looked over the patch and noticed a problem: What happens
when we use --no-preserve=mode and --preserve=all together?
I would not expect --no-preserve=mode to silently override
a following --preserve=all.
Rather, the latter should supersede the former.

Hmm... the right thing appears to be what happens,
in spite of conflicting settings.

It looks like while the two members .preserve_mode and
.explicit_no_preserve_mode can both be set (a contradiction),
that doesn't cause an actual problem because whenever it happens,
.preserve_mode is both correct and the member that is tested first
in an if-else-if... cascade.

So maybe all you need to do it to turn off .explicit_no_preserve_mode
in the PRESERVE_ALL case?

A test case addition to cover that case would be most welcome,
but since I've waited so long to give feedback, it seems unfair
to require that.

 From d52f8990353dac04bff141ff31b6601ba5112a18 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ondrej Oprala <address@hidden>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 16:56:52 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] cp: Fix the --no-preserve=mode option
The .explicit_no_preserve_mode flag should now be turned off when --preserve=all
is run into.
I've also added a test for the mixed options next to other tests in


Attachment: DIFF
Description: Text document

reply via email to

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