Re: Adding -l option to cp

[Matt Thomas <jabbathespud%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Jan 23, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 10:35:24PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> In article <00BED867-3DBD-42EE-8773-EB490EB369BB%gmail.com@localhost>,
>> Adam Hamsik  <haaaad%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Just for the record it can be done with pax -r -w -l.
>> 
>> Does it really matter? Don't we have tools that have overlapping 
>> functionality
>> already? It is simple enough to add, and it does not add a lot of maintenance
>> overhead. In terms of userland utility innovation there is solaris at one
>> end of the spectrum and linux at the other. I think it is better to be
>> somewhere in the middle.
> 
> The most important point is that the patch doesn't seem to make cp
> behave as advertised. It makes cp not *copy*. So if the goal is to have
> a tree-level link create program, that sounds like a good reason to add
> -R to ln, but not a good reason to add it to cp.

Or just add a message redirecting a user to pax if cp -l is given.  Or
simply exec pax for them :)