Re: sftp rename not good.

[Damien Miller <djm%mindrot.org@localhost>]

Dan O'Reilly wrote:
>>Put a different way: if the semantics are irrelevant, then why are we
>>even having this discussion?

[...]

> For example: in UNIX, it may be illegal to rename a file if one of the
> same name exists.  In VMS, it may or may not be illegal, depending on
> if file versions are specified for the complete file specification supplied
> to the rename function.

So if we followed you suggestion and had sftp's rename method simply use
the OS-supplied function, we would have clients that behave differently
depending on the server.

This would break, among other things, scripted/automated applications
and would be a step back from where we are now (where we at least know
the semantics of sftp's rename method).

-d