Re: Adding -l option to cp

[Antti Kantee <pooka%cs.hut.fi@localhost>]

On Sun Jan 23 2011 at 13:36:15 +0000, Valeriy E. Ushakov wrote:
> core@ - can you please decide if we want to inflict that on our cp(1)
> and then we can just import all of them new options at once instead of
> people proposing their favorite option every other month?

Dear All,

The core team has decided to generally support adding simple options
to utilities when they can be seen to improve compatibility with
other Unix-type systems.

This does not mean an automatic ticket to adding all frills from
other systems' utilities.  However, it does shift the focal point
of the discussion: as much as it is the responsibility of the
proposer to present a use case for the new option, it is the
responsibility of the person voicing an objection to provide a
case where the proposed compatibility option is actively harmful
or conflicts with existing standards.  Minor overlap with existing
utilities is not considered harmful.

Since the semantics of these kinds of options are not specified by 
any standards, it is the committer's responsibilty to make sure 
the exact semantics are available on the manual page.  In addition,
the manpage should state what behaviour the option is expected to
conform to, e.g. in this case:

        The -l option is expected to behave similar to cp(1) in
        GNU coreutils.

This particular option (cp -l) is ok to commit after the manual is
improved.

On behalf of the core team,
  antti