era eriksson <era@HIDDEN>
to control <at> debbugs.gnu.org.
Full text available.Received: (at 10054) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2011 22:55:33 +0000 From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 15 17:55:33 2011 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1RQRub-0005IZ-Hj for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:55:33 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <P@HIDDEN>) id 1RQRuV-0005IO-Oz for 10054 <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:55:28 -0500 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAFMsfuG021538 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:54:41 -0500 Received: from [10.36.116.24] (ovpn-116-24.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.24]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pAFMsdhX019100 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 15 Nov 2011 17:54:40 -0500 Message-ID: <4EC2EDAE.8020105@HIDDEN> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 22:54:38 +0000 From: =?UTF-8?B?UMOhZHJhaWcgQnJhZHk=?= <P@HIDDEN> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:6.0) Gecko/20110816 Thunderbird/6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linda Walsh <coreutils@HIDDEN> Subject: Re: bug#10054: [sr #107876] ISSUE: (Unverifyed Bug in 8.13). References: <4EC2B82D.5080407@HIDDEN> In-Reply-To: <4EC2B82D.5080407@HIDDEN> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.3.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mx1.redhat.com id pAFMsfuG021538 X-Spam-Score: -10.5 (----------) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 10054 Cc: 10054 <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit> List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org> List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>, <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe> Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org X-Spam-Score: -10.5 (----------) On 11/15/2011 07:06 PM, Linda Walsh wrote: >=20 >=20 > Seems like 'cc' didn't work... >=20 >=20 >=20 > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [sr #107876] ISSUE: (Unverifyed Bug in 8.13). > Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:28:13 +0000 > From: Linda A. Walsh <INVALID.NOREPLY@HIDDEN> > To: Linda A. Walsh <gnu@HIDDEN> >=20 >=20 >=20 > URL: > <http://savannah.gnu.org/support/?107876> >=20 > Summary: ISSUE: (Unverifyed Bug in 8.13). > Project: GNU Core Utilities > Submitted by: law > Submitted on: Tue Nov 15 10:28:11 2011 > Category: None > Priority: 5 - Normal > Severity: 3 - Normal > Status: None > Privacy: Public > Assigned to: None > Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open > Discussion Lock: Any > Operating System: None >=20 > _______________________________________________________ >=20 > Details: >=20 > it appears from the change log, that a bug was introduced in 8.13. >=20 > The Comment was: >=20 > cp -au (where --preserve=3Dlinks is implicit) may now replace newer > files in the destination, to mirror hard links from the source. We thought this was the lesser of two evils. It would be better to avoid the above behavior of course. > =3D=3D=3D=3D >=20 > However, in copying the files on the target, if the files are NOT linke= d in the destination, then > it would seem we have the case where we start with > src: > a <=3D> b >=20 > dest >=20 > a (dup of a src), b (newer file than src) ; broken links; >=20 >=20 >=20 > ---- >=20 > Then correct action (if it behaves this way, fine, but it doesn't sound= like > it)... >=20 > if -u flag is used, we only update newer file items... >=20 > so, after a cp -au, the above condition would remain > exactly the same. agreed > Unless, if 'a' was updated (and thus, 'b' is also "updated to be newer = than > target "b"), then > src-b would overwrite dst-b right, that case is ok at present > if a updated, but has time < dst 'b', then 'b' > 'a' should not create an older, linked version of 'b', in place of a ne= wer 'b' > on the destination. agreed, but implementation is tricky. I hadn't the time to see if this was possible, and I've now less time. Tests are in place though to check changes in this area. > if 'b' on the src is updated (thus 'a' is updated as well by being link= ed), > and 'b' is newer than dst-b), then > the linked relationship would be copied to the dst (both > a+b copied and linked). right, that case is ok at present > But the key here is that an updated 'a' linked to 'b' on src, > shoudln't overwrite, recreate a link to b on dst IF dst-b is NEWER than= the > 'b' that would be created. Yep, this is the awkward case. > i.e. while -a says to preserve links, in the presense of -u, one would = expect > the newest copies to remain on the dst, as forcing a link in *all* case= s, would break the semantics of "-u". >=20 > i.e. use of -u should override -a-'s keep links...(warning/verbose or m= aybe > some 'message on exception'... Maybe someone could have a look. I saw nothing obvious to address the issue. The original discussion was at: http://bugs.gnu.org/8419 cheers, P=C3=A1draig.
bug-coreutils@HIDDEN:bug#10054; Package coreutils.
Full text available.
Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 15 Nov 2011 19:07:38 +0000
From debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org Tue Nov 15 14:07:38 2011
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=debbugs.gnu.org)
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org>)
id 1RQOM2-0008Th-DQ
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:07:38 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92])
by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <coreutils@HIDDEN>) id 1RQOLx-0008TQ-EM
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:07:33 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
(envelope-from <coreutils@HIDDEN>) id 1RQOL9-00085e-5g
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:06:43 -0500
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on eggs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HS_INDEX_PARAM,
RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.1
Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]:54668)
by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
(envelope-from <coreutils@HIDDEN>) id 1RQOL9-00085a-1s
for submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:06:39 -0500
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:34868)
by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
(envelope-from <coreutils@HIDDEN>) id 1RQOL4-00011s-OI
for bug-coreutils@HIDDEN; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:06:39 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
(envelope-from <coreutils@HIDDEN>) id 1RQOL0-000846-4g
for bug-coreutils@HIDDEN; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:06:34 -0500
Received: from ishtar.tlinx.org ([173.164.175.65]:49228
helo=Ishtar.sc.tlinx.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
(envelope-from <coreutils@HIDDEN>) id 1RQOKy-00082M-Cu
for bug-coreutils@HIDDEN; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:06:30 -0500
Received: from [192.168.3.140] (Athenae [192.168.3.140])
by Ishtar.sc.tlinx.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id
pAFJ6Lnx023909
for <bug-coreutils@HIDDEN>; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:06:23 -0800
Message-ID: <4EC2B82D.5080407@HIDDEN>
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:06:21 -0800
From: Linda Walsh <coreutils@HIDDEN>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US;
rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24
Mnenhy/0.7.6.666
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bug-coreutils@HIDDEN
Subject: [sr #107876] ISSUE: (Unverifyed Bug in 8.13).
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not
recognized.
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3)
X-Received-From: 140.186.70.17
X-Spam-Score: -5.2 (-----)
X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit
X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: <debbugs-submit.debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/debbugs-submit>
List-Post: <mailto:debbugs-submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debbugs-submit>,
<mailto:debbugs-submit-request <at> debbugs.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces <at> debbugs.gnu.org
X-Spam-Score: -5.3 (-----)
Seems like 'cc' didn't work...
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [sr #107876] ISSUE: (Unverifyed Bug in 8.13).
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:28:13 +0000
From: Linda A. Walsh <INVALID.NOREPLY@HIDDEN>
To: Linda A. Walsh <gnu@HIDDEN>
URL:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/support/?107876>
Summary: ISSUE: (Unverifyed Bug in 8.13).
Project: GNU Core Utilities
Submitted by: law
Submitted on: Tue Nov 15 10:28:11 2011
Category: None
Priority: 5 - Normal
Severity: 3 - Normal
Status: None
Privacy: Public
Assigned to: None
Originator Email:
Open/Closed: Open
Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: None
_______________________________________________________
Details:
it appears from the change log, that a bug was introduced in 8.13.
The Comment was:
cp -au (where --preserve=links is implicit) may now replace newer
files in the destination, to mirror hard links from the source.
====
However, in copying the files on the target,
if the files are NOT linked in the destination, then
it would seem we have the case where we start with
src:
a <=> b
dest
a (dup of a src), b (newer file than src) ; broken links;
----
Then correct action (if it behaves this way, fine, but it doesn't sound like
it)...
if -u flag is used, we only update newer file items...
so, after a cp -au, the above condition would remain
exactly the same.
Unless, if 'a' was updated (and thus, 'b' is also "updated to be newer than
target "b"), then
src-b would overwrite dst-b
if a updated, but has time < dst 'b', then 'b'
'a' should not create an older, linked version of 'b', in place of a newer 'b'
on the destination.
if 'b' on the src is updated (thus 'a' is updated as well by being linked),
and 'b' is newer than dst-b), then
the linked relationship would be copied to the dst (both
a+b copied and linked).
But the key here is that an updated 'a' linked to 'b' on src,
shoudln't overwrite, recreate a link to b on dst IF dst-b is NEWER than the
'b' that would be created.
i.e. while -a says to preserve links, in the presense of -u, one would expect
the newest copies to remain on the dst, as
forcing a link in *all* cases, would break the semantics of "-u".
i.e. use of -u should override -a-'s keep links...(warning/verbose or maybe
some 'message on exception'...
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/support/?107876>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
Linda Walsh <coreutils@HIDDEN>:bug-coreutils@HIDDEN.
Full text available.bug-coreutils@HIDDEN:bug#10054; Package coreutils.
Full text available.
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.