On 12/11/23 12:03, Abraham S.A.H. via GNU coreutils Bug Reports wrote:
a sane default behaviour regarding extended attributes in mv and others?
What's wrong with the default behavior in current GNU mv? Please give a
specific example (specify platform, filesystems, mv version, etc.).
Seriously?
How many years have to pass so that we can have a sane default behaviour
regarding extended attributes in mv and others?
Do you consider it as a Wishlist bug? Like, if most people don't use extended
attributes now, it is just because there is enough risk to lose their precious
data if
Pádraig Brady writes:
> On 01/31/2013 07:06 PM, j...@dockes.org wrote:
> >
> > When moving a file having extended attributes to a target filesystem which
> > does not support them (e.g. an NFS mount), the attributes are silently
> > lost.
> >
> > I think that mv should not complete the move
On 01/31/2013 07:06 PM, j...@dockes.org wrote:
When moving a file having extended attributes to a target filesystem which
does not support them (e.g. an NFS mount), the attributes are silently
lost.
I think that mv should not complete the move in this case, as the current
behaviour leads to sil
When moving a file having extended attributes to a target filesystem which
does not support them (e.g. an NFS mount), the attributes are silently
lost.
I think that mv should not complete the move in this case, as the current
behaviour leads to silent and unexpected data loss.
Ideally, this beha
