Re: Adding -l option to cp

[uwe%stderr.spb.ru@localhost (Valeriy E. Ushakov)]

Antti Kantee <pooka%cs.hut.fi@localhost> wrote:

> 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.

Are semantic gaps considered harmful?

I maintain my objection that committing -l in isolation is wrong.  It
should only be committed along with at least -s and -x.

-s for obvious hard/soft link symmetry.

-x b/c linking fails across mount points, so you must have an option
   to control that aspect to go along with -l

-uwe