On Wed 15 Jun 2016 at 18:46:01 (+0000), Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > On Qua, 15 Jun 2016, Dan Purgert wrote: > >It is "redundant" in the sense that you move all the way into > >/home/lisi/pictures/, and then say 'this directory here' (with ./). BUT > >as emetib mentions, being an explicit "this directory here" command will > >ensurethat the system dumps the file(s) into the directory you expect; > >or fail out in the event that the destination is not a directory (as it > >would in this case -- pictures are typically stored in > >"$HOME/*P*ictures". Remember, capitalization counts). > > OK, but wouldn't /home/user/Pictures/ (note trailing slash) also > fail in case there isn't a directory Pictures or it's a file? What > does "/./" add that "/" doesn't do?
I agree; it's a waste of typing. > >Without the "/./" characters, if you were using something like "scp > >/path/to/files/*.jpg user@host:/home/user/destination" and "destination" > >was not already a directory, the system would happily copy every file > >over the previous one (naming each one 'destination'). > > I can't tell what scp does in this case (and can't try right now), > but regular cp fails with a message saying that 'destination' is not > a directory. I'd imagine scp does something similar. That is my experience. But the trailing / is always worthwhile, if only for the case in which you type, say: scp -p /path/to/files/*.jpg user@host:/home/user/destination (where you've forgotten that destination is actually a file) and *.jpg, unluckily for you, happens to match just one file. Now you're in trouble. Cheers, David.
