Subject: Re: bin/16834
To: Klaus Klein <>
From: Jason R. Fink <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 12/06/2002 19:57:43
> No.  A script expecting a 'restrictively' conforming cp would be
> broken, since a conforming cp utility may well support additional
> options.  Furthermore, a conforming cp utility shall conform to the
> Utility Syntax Guidelines, which imply use of getopt() option parsing
> (or getopt()-like behaviour), and therefore invoking the utility with
> an unrecognized option character will usually result in an error.
> What you'd be looking for, in this particular case, is ``cp -- -v
> foo''.

Heh, all this for a -v option :-)

Well, I'll futz with it, seems like something within my
medicated capabilities.


Jay Fink
NetBSD Developer
Senior SysAdmin/Programmer, Ipsos