Andi Kleen wrote: > Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> writes: >> >> Thanks. I haven't looked, but after reading about the reflink syscall >> [http://lwn.net/Articles/332802/] had come to the same conclusion: >> this feature belongs with ln rather than with cp. > > cp already has -l so it would make sense to extend that too.
Good point. >> Besides, putting the new behavior on a new option avoids >> the current semantic change we would otherwise induce in cp. > > I don't see how semantics change in a user visible way. With classic cp, if I copy a 1GB non-sparse file and there's less space than that available, cp fails with ENOSPC. With this new feature, it succeeds even if there are just a few blocks available. Also, consider (buggy!) code that then depends on being able to modify that file in-place, and that "knows" it doesn't need to check for ENOSPC. Sure, they should always check for write failure, but still. It is a change. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
