GNU bug report logs - #10686
mv: moving hardlink of a softlink to the softlink does nothing

Previous Next

Full log

Message #29 received at 10686 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bernhard Voelker <mail <at> bernhard-voelker.de>
To: Jim Meyering <jim <at> meyering.net>
Cc: Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>, 10686 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#10686: mv: moving hardlink of a softlink to the softlink
	does nothing
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:10:41 +0100

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

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.