Re: cp -n diff

[Zafer Aydoğan <zafer%aydogan.de@localhost>]

2011/5/5 D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy%netbsd.org@localhost>:
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 06:53:06 +0700
> Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost> wrote:
>> However, I also don't see any significant difference between this
>> proposed -n flag, and the -l flag that was added to cp a couple of
>> months ago.
>
> The main difference is that -l doesn't quite duplicate functionality in
> the base system.  Pax comes close but is not quite the same.  Check the
> archives for the end of that discussion.  It has to do with the way
> symlinks are handled.
>
> By the way, rsync does do the right thing and makes the -l option
> unnecessary but that is not in base.
>

pax is only in the base system of NetBSD.
Its third party for the rest, whereas cp is the same across all.
Although I can do things with pax that fulfil this task, it fits in cp.
Also I don't understand the general rejection because it
may be "duplicative" because I could use "pax".
I could use anything I want to.
"Don't use this, because you could use that."
What kind of thinking is that ?
There are many apps in base to accomplish the same goal.
Should we now strip them all down to be not redundant ?
Isn't the general goal to keep NetBSD usable ? For everyone ?

Zafer.