Subject: Re: B20: mv deletes files on error (NT)
From: Chris Faylor <[email-masked]>
To: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Corinna Vinschen <[email-masked]>, David Dagon <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 1999 19:15:39 -0500

Fwiw, Corinna is right here but because of "hard links".  This comes down
to the question should "Foo" have the same inode as "foo".  The answer
is "Yes."

What that means is that when 'mv' checks for the existence of the target
file it finds that 1) that it exists and 2) that it is the same file.
Since mv refuses to move a file to itself, the only feasible change is
to 'mv'.

-chris

On Mon, Mar 29, 1999 at 06:09:52PM -0500, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
>At 12:35 AM 3/30/99 +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>
>>
>>"Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" wrote:
>>> 
>>> to support this at the expense of existing functionality?  I think this
>>> change needs to be revisited.
>>
>>IMHO, `mv' should be changed, by inserting `#if[n]def __CYGWIN__'.
>>Or would you like to downsize the abilities of a system, because _one_
>>program handles it the wrong way?
>
>Again, depends on your point of view which change will "downsize the 
>abilities of a system".  Considering that the semantics have been what UNIX
>users expect all this time and no one had cause for complaint with it, I'm
>not certain that the change will not be perceived as a downsizing (I've 
>learned over the years that perception is more important than the actual
>facts of a matter).  In any case, I'm not suggesting that hard links should 
>not be supported, if this is indeed the way to support them.  I'm merely 
>questioning whether the current change is not trading one for the other.  In 
>the same flavor as your suggestion to modify "mv" to make it work as it did 
>in the context of your change, what's wrong with modifying "ln" to handle 
>hard links while "mv" and perhaps even cygwin remain as they have always 
>been?  Wouldn't making a change to "mv" necessitate a change to "cp" as 
>well?  What about other utilities???  This doesn't seem to me to be in line 
>with the goal of Cygwin.  
>
>There's always multiple ways of solving a problem.  I'm just questioning if
>this is the best way to solve this one.  I personally don't think it makes 
>sense to change "mv", "ln", or any other utility outside the Cygwin DLL unless
>its absolutely necessary.  That's my only point.  If you are claiming that a 
>change to one ("mv" in your case) or more is the only way to handle this 
>situation, then I guess you've made your point clear as well.  
>
>Is there any other point that's been missed?  
>
>Personally, I foresee rounds of complaints from those used to the semantics
>of "mv", "cp", and others in UNIX-like environments once this change hits
>the release.  It seems to me like it has the potential to be yet another
>"text vs binary" debate.  I'm not interested in seeing such debates 
>repeatedly in this list until all the tools get "properly ported"...:-(
>
>
>Larry Hall                             [email-masked]
>RFK Partners, Inc.                     (781) 239-1053
>8 Grove Street                         (781) 239-1655
>Wellesley, MA, 02482-7797              http://www.rfk.com

-- 
[email-masked]
http://www.cygnus.com/

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to [email-masked]