Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 07:09:25 -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: <20050331120925.GA11004@VARK.MIT.EDU> In-Reply-To: <20050331144552.L20243@delplex.bde.org> References: <20050330181904.16519571@mobile.pittgoth.com> <20050331144552.L20243@delplex.bde.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Thu, Mar 31, 2005, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Tom Rhodes wrote: > > >Hi -standards. > > > >What do people think of the following patch to cp.c: > > It seems to be wrong. From cp(1): [...] I knew someone would object to this. ;-) I think the rationale for the change is that nobody relies on the old, unportable behavior of -r, but many people get burned by saying -r when they meant -R. So the real question is whether it's true that nobody relies on the old behavior...help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050331120925.GA11004>