On 02/01/2012 04:45 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification and quotes, Eric.
>
> Bernhard, here's a better patch.
> With it, mv simply unlinks the "s" in your example:
>
> diff --git a/src/copy.c b/src/copy.c
> index 4810de8..73f5cc5 100644
> --- a/src/copy.c
> +++ b/src/copy.c
> @@ -1229,7 +1229,17 @@ same_file_ok (char const *src_name, struct stat const
> *src_sb,
> know this here IFF preserving symlinks), then it's ok -- as long
> as they are distinct. */
> if (S_ISLNK (src_sb->st_mode) && S_ISLNK (dst_sb->st_mode))
> - return ! same_name (src_name, dst_name);
> + {
> + bool sn = same_name (src_name, dst_name);
> + if ( ! sn && same_link)
> + {
> + *unlink_src = true;
> + *return_now = true;
> + return true;
> + }
> +
> + return ! sn;
> + }
>
> src_sb_link = src_sb;
> dst_sb_link = dst_sb;
Thank you both.
The patch works.
I wonder if just removing the x->hard_link constraint at the beginning
of same_file_ok() would alsoo do (although the comment sounds like this
is no good idea):
@@ -1213,11 +1213,11 @@ same_file_ok (char const *src_name, struct stat const
*src_sb,
/* FIXME: this should (at the very least) be moved into the following
if-block. More likely, it should be removed, because it inhibits
making backups. But removing it will result in a change in behavior
that will probably have to be documented -- and tests will have to
be updated. */
- if (same && x->hard_link)
+ if (same)
{
*return_now = true;
return true;
}
Please don't think I just want to give you more work,
but I think this deserves a new test, doesn't it?
Have a nice day,
Berny
