Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:37:06 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@FreeBSD.org> To: David Schultz <das@FreeBSD.org> Cc: standards@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Patch for cp(1) Message-ID: <20050401123706.048e2ab6@mobile.pittgoth.com> In-Reply-To: <20050401172207.GA23665@VARK.MIT.EDU> References: <20050330181904.16519571@mobile.pittgoth.com> <20050401191850.Q24028@delplex.bde.org> <200504011517.j31FHxTO084986@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> <20050402015901.K24966@delplex.bde.org> <20050401172207.GA23665@VARK.MIT.EDU>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 12:22:07 -0500 David Schultz <das@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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. Yes, that is an argument for my patch. :) > > 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. I agree that completely removing -r would be bad right now. -- Tom Rhodeshelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050401123706.048e2ab6>