On Nov 1, 2008, at 5:00 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder why 'mv' is not allowed to act on directories. I found
somewhere this argument:
What should mv do to a `tree' that resides on multiple file servers?
If you can't do something right, sometimes it's not worth doing at
all.
-rob
> There is dircp (in tar(1)) for moving trees around, or the long-form " @{cd
> fromdir && tar cp .} | @{cd todir && tar xT} ", if you prefer.
I know that. It's a copy, not move.
> But "behavior deviates from the similarly-named command in
> lunix" cannot be the definition of "bug."
I just can't
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Rudolf Sykora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There is dircp (in tar(1)) for moving trees around, or the long-form " @{cd
>> fromdir && tar cp .} | @{cd todir && tar xT} ", if you prefer.
>
> I know that. It's a copy, not move.
>
>> But "behavior deviates from the simi
I know that. It's a copy, not move.
Looking at mv.c, I believe anything that's not a rename (ie move
within a directory) is a copy, then a hardremove. Mv(1) says the same
thing.
I just can't see any reason why to mention anything about any bug. I
didn't do that.
I wrote that because o
* Eric Van Hensbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think its a great idea. Folks seem to make good use of the
> inferno-os bug tracker. I took the initiative and setup a google code
> project to serve this purpose:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/plan9-os
Great. Perhaps you could add s
* Roman V. Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 19:07 +0100, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> >
> > I'd like to vote against feeding up p9p with more things,
> > instead split it up into smaller pieces. Modern distros tend
> > to have quite convenient package ma
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 1:57 PM, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Eric Van Hensbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I think its a great idea. Folks seem to make good use of the
>> inferno-os bug tracker. I took the initiative and setup a google code
>> project to serve this purpose:
On Nov 1, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
I really fail to see what is your problem here. There's no
rule that source code repository has to correspond 1-1
to the binary package. In fact, it is quite common
to use a single repository for producing a number of
different binary packages.
On Nov 1, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Rudolf Sykora
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Again, "What should mv do to a tree that resides on multiple file
servers?"
what about: mv dirA dirB ==
mkdir dirB
dircp dirA dirB
rm -r dirA
... if you are able
On Nov 1, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Josh Wood wrote:
All that said, it's not like I've never cursed a directory that
wouldn't mv for me in Plan 9 -- so if someone had an answer for
Rob's question: "What should mv do to a tree that resides on
multiple file servers?", it could be interesting to discus
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
>>
>> I would imagine that 99% of the time (more?) the behavior people
>> desire would be what you describe.
>
> But what is the behavior? Is it literally the above s
11 matches
Mail list logo
