On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 01:50:07PM +1000, john slee wrote:
> On 16 June 2011 04:32, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > Guideline 11:
> > The order of different options relative to one another should not
> > matter, unless the options are documented as mutually-exclusive and
> > such an option is documented
On 16 June 2011 04:32, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> Guideline 11:
> The order of different options relative to one another should not
> matter, unless the options are documented as mutually-exclusive and
> such an option is documented to override any incompatible options
> preceding it.
IMHO later opti
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 03:00:38PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > Yes, that's the wording used for rm(1). And -i should have a similar line.
> >
> > I checked net and free, they implement -i and -f as we do.
>
> Bizarrely, I read mv where you
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 03:00:38PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > Yes, that's the wording used for rm(1). And -i should have a similar line.
> >
> > I checked net and free, they implement -i and -f as we do.
>
> Bizarrely, I read mv where yo
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> Yes, that's the wording used for rm(1). And -i should have a similar line.
>
> I checked net and free, they implement -i and -f as we do.
Bizarrely, I read mv where you typed rm and used that. Now I notice
you said rm. All three should pro
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 08:26:13PM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Otto Moerbeek wrote on Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:41:08PM +0200:
>
> > Posix does not say anything about the interaction of -i and -f.
>
> I seem to dimly remember that POSIX says something about the
> precedence of conflicting option
Otto Moerbeek wrote on Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:41:08PM +0200:
> Posix does not say anything about the interaction of -i and -f.
I seem to dimly remember that POSIX says something about the
precedence of conflicting options in general (in general as in:
when there is no specific ruling for a speci
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:11:37PM +0200, Jan Stary wrote:
> On Jun 15 17:41:08, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:25:17PM +0200, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
> >
> > > Op Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:52:12 +0200 schreef Jan Stary :
> > > >The manpage of cp says
> > > >
> > > > -f
On Jun 15 17:41:08, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:25:17PM +0200, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
>
> > Op Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:52:12 +0200 schreef Jan Stary :
> > >The manpage of cp says
> > >
> > > -f For each existing destination pathname, remove it and
> > >create a
> >
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Jan Stary wrote:
> The manpage of cp says
>
> -f For each existing destination pathname, remove it and create a
> new file, without prompting for confirmation, regardless of its
> permissions. This option overrides any use of -i.
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 05:25:17PM +0200, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:
> Op Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:52:12 +0200 schreef Jan Stary :
> >The manpage of cp says
> >
> > -f For each existing destination pathname, remove it and
> >create a
> > new file, without prompting for confirmatio
Op Wed, 15 Jun 2011 16:52:12 +0200 schreef Jan Stary :
The manpage of cp says
-f For each existing destination pathname, remove it and
create a
new file, without prompting for confirmation, regardless of its
permissions. This option overrides any use of -i
The manpage of cp says
-f For each existing destination pathname, remove it and create a
new file, without prompting for confirmation, regardless of its
permissions. This option overrides any use of -i.
-i Write a prompt to the standard error output
13 matches
Mail list logo
