[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: bug#32127: RFE -- in the way "cp -rl" -- enable 'ln' to do likewise?

From: Mike Hodson
Subject: Re: bug#32127: RFE -- in the way "cp -rl" -- enable 'ln' to do likewise?
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 04:36:44 -0600

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:24 AM L A Walsh <address@hidden> wrote:

> In the case of creating a link to a directory there is
> no choice in creating a "working solution".  If you want a link
> there, it HAS to be a symlink.  That the user would bother to
> use the 'ln' (link) command in the first place is a sufficiently
> convincing "argument" that they really DID want a link there.
> That they didn't explicitly specify the type should additionally
> be taken that they didn't care enough to specify the type -- only
> that the link be created.
>         I hope that clarifies that I'm not attempting to always
> find some "automatic action", but saw that in this case, it
> wouldn't be hard to figure out what was wanted and that doing
> so wouldn't be hard to undo if it was not.
I wager that some people *aren't* aware that you cannot hardlink a
directory, and instead of writing hundreds of NEW bug reports "linking
broken" "why can't I link a directory" leaving 'ln' as it has been since
the dawn of time is the better option.

You don't think this will happen? I assure you it will.

Look at the YEARS of new users being introduced, as their distributions
finally 'stabilize' newer coreutils, to the new "Quoted Filenames" in 'ls'
. So many people have been totally confused, angry, and rather taken aback
that such an old utility did something different.

Even when it could be argued(and I said exactly this when I saw the new
feature)  "Hey, thats pretty cool, i can cut and paste with a mouse now and
it won't require manual editing later" and many people have made this
argument; many other people have made the argument of "if its not in an
interactive terminal, NOTHING CHANGED" because so many thought that "well
crap I can't rely on any scripts to work anymore"


Let us all learn from history, on this same maillist, of when and when not
to change the default workings of a 40 year old tool.
Perhaps, there are better things to do with the time than argue a point
that will cause NUMEROUS people grief in the future.


reply via email to

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