[PATCH] adding two new options to 'cp'

[Ivan Voras]

Rick C. Petty wrote:

> "-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)??

It's like saying "if you need this option, go to Linux" - it just seems 
wrong.

With all respect to "series of small utilities" way of doing things, I 
think the "whatever is shorter to type" takes precedence :)

And it's not like the added code will have to be changed/maintained in 
the forseeable future - if the basic implementation is ok, the 
underlying structures and ideas will not change while UFS semantics are 
in use.