Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:22:07 -0500 From: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.ORG> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: standards@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch for cp(1) Message-ID: <20050401172207.GA23665@VARK.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <20050402015901.K24966@delplex.bde.org> References: <20050330181904.16519571@mobile.pittgoth.com> <20050401191850.Q24028@delplex.bde.org> <200504011517.j31FHxTO084986@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20050402015901.K24966@delplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Fri, 1 Apr 2005, Garrett Wollman wrote: > > ><<On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 20:43:02 +1000 (EST), Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> > >said: > > > >[cp -r] > >>I think we don't need to keep it except for POSIX compatibility. > > > >>New programs just shouldn't use cp -r. Old programs that use cp -r > >>shouldn't have its behaviour changed. > > > >I'm more concerned about humans. [...] > -r is the same as -R under Linux (linux_base_8), and it isn't even > deprecated > in cp --help at least, so it won't go away, and fingers will be trained to > use it in preference to -R, for at least another 20 years. Isn't that an argument *for* Tom's patch? In any case, I think the argument about old programs is bogus, because there are undoubtedly more scripts that assume the Linux behavior than there are pre-4.2BSD scripts out there. Furthermore, are there situations where -r and -R differ such that -r would behave reasonably? If it's the case that every time someone uses -r they really mean -R, then simply eliminating -r is worse than making it an alias for -R.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050401172207.GA23665>