On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 06:23:02PM +0100, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
>
> Index: mv.1
> ===================================================================
i have no problem with this diff, but some tweak/concerns below:
> RCS file: /cvs/src/bin/mv/mv.1,v
> retrieving revision 1.26
> diff -u -r1.26 mv.1
> --- mv.1 3 Sep 2010 09:53:20 -0000 1.26
> +++ mv.1 26 Dec 2010 17:18:08 -0000
> @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@
> .Os
> .Sh NAME
> .Nm mv
> -.Nd move files
> +.Nd move files and directories
hmm...
cp - copy files
rm - remove directory entries
mv - move files and directories # with your changes
i'm ok with all approaches, but i fear we are being inconsistent on
three very important utilities about how we describe things. do we
accept that files and directories are the same? do we distinguish?
i think we should make this consistent for all three.
> .Sh SYNOPSIS
> .Nm mv
> .Op Fl fi
> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@
> .Sh DESCRIPTION
> In its first form, the
> .Nm
> -utility moves the file named by the
> +utility moves the file or directory named by the
> .Ar source
> operand to the destination path named by the
> .Ar target
> @@ -59,20 +59,27 @@
> .Pp
> In its second form,
> .Nm
> -moves each file named by a
> +moves each file and directory named by a
> .Ar source
> -operand to a destination specified by the
> +operand into the destination specified by the
> .Ar directory
> operand.
> It is an error if the
> .Ar directory
> -operand does not exist.
> +does not exist.
> The destination path for each
> .Ar source
> operand is the pathname produced by the concatenation of the
> .Ar directory
> operand, a slash, and the final pathname component of the named file.
> .Pp
> +In both forms, a
> +.Ar source
> +operand is skipped with an error message
> +when the respective destination path is a non-empy directory,
> +or when the source is a file, but the destination path is a directory
> +or vice versa.
i'd say your comma would be better placed after "directory" and not
"file".
> +.Pp
> The options are as follows:
> .Bl -tag -width Ds
> .It Fl f
> @@ -117,9 +124,9 @@
> to accomplish the move.
> The effect is equivalent to:
> .Bd -literal -offset indent
> -$ rm -f destination_path && \e
> - cp -PRp source_file destination && \e
> - rm -rf source_file
> +$ rm -df -- destination_path && \e
> + cp -PRp -- source destination_path && \e
> + rm -rf -- source
> .Ed
> .Sh EXIT STATUS
> .Ex -std mv
> @@ -145,6 +152,26 @@
> $ mv -i -- -f bar
> $ mv -i ./-f bar
> .Ed
> +.Pp
> +If
> +.Pa f
> +and
> +.Pa g
> +are files and
> +.Pa d
> +and
> +.Pa d/f
> +are directories, the command
> +.Pp
> +.Dl $ mv f g d
> +.Pp
> +will print an error message, leave
> +.Pa f
> +where it is, move
> +.Pa g
> +to
> +.Pa d/g
> +and return a non-zero exit status.
> .Sh SEE ALSO
> .Xr cp 1 ,
> .Xr rm 1 ,
> @@ -161,20 +188,3 @@
> .Nm
> command appeared in
> .At v1 .
> -.Sh CAVEATS
> -In the second synopsis form
> -if the destination path exists,
> -the
> -.Ar source
> -operand and the destination path
> -must both be a file or must both be a directory
> -for the operation to succeed.
> -For example, if
> -.Pa f
> -is a file and
> -.Pa d
> -and
> -.Pa d/f
> -are directories, the following command will fail:
> -.Pp
> -.Dl $ mv f d
i'm not convinced. it feels like you are removing a valid warning,
and turning it into an example. the author obviously intended that
people watch out for this (or had enough experience of people falling
for it, that they saw fit to warn them). you were caught out because
you nearly missed it in CAVEATS - i think it even less likely that
someone would catch it in EXAMPLES.
so, my instinct is that you "fix" CAVEATS, not move it. i'm happy
to be persuaded otherwise though.
jmc
