[PATCH] adding two new options to 'cp'
Rick C. Petty
rick-freebsd at kiwi-computer.com
Mon Jul 31 18:44:57 UTC 2006
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 12:42:02PM -0500, Eric Anderson wrote:
> On 07/31/06 12:28, Rick C. Petty wrote:
> >In both cases, why don't you just use:
> Two reasons - it's not in the base system, so a port has to be installed
> - and linux_base is FC3 now, so if you want to talk about bloat...
And the "-l" option is needed in single-user mode? I like not having extra
bloat around when I don't even have /usr mounted and am trying to fix a
disk or misconfiguration. I'm just arguing the usefulness of having it in
the base system vs. using linux_base. The argument that our cp should be
equivalent to gcp seems silly to me.
"-l" may be a useful option, but at what point is the line drawn between
bloating our base cp and having a gcp port (or using linux_base)??
"-a" certainly is useless. An alias is far more useful-- even for things
in /bin ! I certainly cp and mv mapped to "cp -i" and "mv -i".. one could
also argue that the our base versions of these use this option by default.
Personally, I prefer to do a post-install patch to add these aliases to
/etc/csh.cshrc (actually on my systems: /etc/csh.aliases) and /etc/profile,
> Another reason is gcp fails to recursively copy a directory that has
> symlinks in it.
That sounds like a bug or at least an oversight.
-- Rick C. Petty
More information about the freebsd-hackers