From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 19 05:05:14 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F41B316A41F for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 05:05:13 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from matt@gsicomp.on.ca) Received: from skippyii.compar.com (ftp.compar.com [216.208.38.130]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5331143D46 for ; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 05:05:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from matt@gsicomp.on.ca) Received: from hermes (CPE00062566c7bb-CM0011e6ede298.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [70.28.254.189]) by skippyii.compar.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jAJ56JRt058698; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 00:06:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from matt@gsicomp.on.ca) Message-ID: <002a01c5ecc6$e8a0cfe0$1200a8c0@gsicomp.on.ca> From: "Matt Emmerton" To: "Peter Jeremy" , "Brian Candler" , References: <20051116161540.GB4383@uk.tiscali.com><20051118091333.GA1058@galgenberg.net><20051118145051.GA3713@Pandora.MHoerich.de> <20051119034522.GS39882@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au> Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 00:05:46 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1506 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1506 Cc: Subject: Re: Order of files with 'cp' X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 05:05:14 -0000 > On Fri, 2005-Nov-18 15:50:53 +0100, Mario Hoerich wrote: > >This just adds a -o flag to cp, which preserves order. > > I think that's overkill. IMHO, cp should just copy files in the order > specified on the command line (or directory order for recursive copies). > For most purposes, the order is irrelevant. In cases where it is > relevant, the caller has a better idea of what order they want and can > juggle the command line to suit. Hear hear! The underlying change, while technically sound, breaks POLA -- which should have been the first thing to consider when this change was suggested, and should have been rejected immediately on that ground alone. Why not revert to the "legacy" behaviour, and use the -o option for the "optimized" algorithm? -- Matt Emmerton