Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:28:58 -0500 From: "Rick C. Petty" <rick-freebsd@kiwi-computer.com> To: Juan Rodriguez <juan.fco.rodriguez@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] adding two new options to 'cp' Message-ID: <20060731172858.GA84042@megan.kiwi-computer.com> In-Reply-To: <96b30c400607310847s1d2f845eo212b234d03f51e9a@mail.gmail.com> References: <200607271150.k6RBoM9p031745@lurza.secnetix.de> <44C8FB65.9020102@FreeBSD.org> <44CE03D2.2050803@centtech.com> <17614.4005.407223.621637@bhuda.mired.org> <44CE199C.2020500@centtech.com> <17614.8289.134373.387558@bhuda.mired.org> <96b30c400607310847s1d2f845eo212b234d03f51e9a@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 05:47:09PM +0200, Juan Rodriguez wrote: > > My GNU version of "cp" has more than 18 options, the FreeBSD > version only has 9. > > As I usually work with Linux machines, I'm used to "cp -a" and I have always > hated to have to look up in the FreeBSD's "cp" manual page for the right > options to get the same funtionality. I tend to think > that "-a" is option bloating because it's not really needed, but I see > "-l" as a new feature for "cp" that might be useful. I agree, -a is bloat. However I don't understand why you say: > To sum it up, I think "cp -a" and "cp -l" are both useful, I agree that the "-l" option *may* be useful. > the first one > because of compatibility with the large base of Linux systems out there, and > the second one because I think it's a useful feature for the FreeBSD "cp". In both cases, why don't you just use: /usr/compat/linux/bin/cp If you're not going to add all 18 options to our cp, then -a shouldn't be added at all. It doesn't provide any useful functionality, and the argument to make it more compatible with Linux is silly unless you add the other 9 options. If you want the linux cp, use the linux cp. -- Rick C. Petty
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060731172858.GA84042>