[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Blake) wrote: >> And the result would be correct wether x is removed, or y was replaced (I >> see this similar to rm not doing the same thing as unlink to achieve removal >> of a name, but resorting to a variety of syscalls). > > This corner case is problematic in POSIX. The fact that GNU even removes > x is counter to a strict reading of POSIX, which requires that mv defer > to rename(2), and that rename is a no-op when the old and new name > refer to the same file (even when it is two different names of a hard > link). But this is so counter-intuitive that GNU has chosen to break with > POSIX on this regards (except perhaps under POSIXLY_CORRECT; I'd
In this tiny corner case, GNU mv violates POSIX even when POSIXLY_CORRECT is set. And I want to keep it that way. The POSIX requirement is simply too counter-intuitive. > have to re-read the source to be sure). So I'm not sure if Jim should > spend much more effort improving the verbose output; I'm sure that Jim will not spend more time on this :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
