GNU bug report logs - #15173
[cp] --link overrides dereference settings

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: Gian Piero Carrubba <gpiero <at> rm-rf.it>
To: Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com>
Cc: Bernhard Voelker <mail <at> bernhard-voelker.de>, Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>, 15173 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#15173: [cp] --link overrides dereference settings
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2013 01:01:06 +0100

>On 11/04/2013 12:48 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
[...]
>> BUT I'm not happy at all with the following case:
>>
>>   $ : > file
>>   $ ln -s file filelink
>>   $ src/cp --link filelink dst--link
>>   $ src/cp --link -R filelink dst--link-R
>>   $ ls -ldogi file filelink dst--link dst--link-R
>>   537364 -rw-r--r-- 2 0 Nov  4 01:30 dst--link
>>   537365 lrwxrwxrwx 2 4 Nov  4 01:30 dst--link-R -> file
>>   537364 -rw-r--r-- 2 0 Nov  4 01:30 file
>>   537365 lrwxrwxrwx 2 4 Nov  4 01:30 filelink -> file
>>
>> That's exactly what Gian was worried about in a different case
>> of my solution: it *matters* whether the rather unrelated -R option
>> is specified or not. ;-(

Exactly. But this is a problem with the implementation of '-R', and as 
such I think it should be fixed there. Please see the just-opened bug 
#15806 [0]. Imho, modifying it here would mean special-casing a 
special-case. Add we wouldn't gain a lot in terms of consistency ( `cp` 
dereferences, `cp -R` doesn't, `cp -lR` does ).

[0] http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=15806

* [Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 09:37:07AM +0000] Pádraig Brady:
>> diff --git a/src/cp.c b/src/cp.c
>> index 7bc8630..78c0a04 100644
>> --- a/src/cp.c
>> +++ b/src/cp.c
>> @@ -1135,7 +1135,7 @@ main (int argc, char **argv)
>>
>>    if (x.dereference == DEREF_UNDEFINED)
>>      {
>> -      if (x.recursive)
>> +      if (x.recursive && ! x.hard_link)
>>          /* This is compatible with FreeBSD.  */
>>          x.dereference = DEREF_NEVER;
>>        else
>
>Yes I didn't consider -R in the table as I don't see any reason
>for it to behave differently when -l is specified (and -l aplies
>neither to POSIX or BSD (comment)).  So the above adjustment
>looks correct to me.

Not sure I've understood what you mean here. If '-R' should act the same 
when '-l' is specified, the above change should _not_ be applied. But I 
probably misunderstood.

Ciao,
Gian Piero.

Previous Next

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