GNU bug report logs - #79931
possible option additions/changes for GNU "touch"

Previous Next

To reply to this bug, email your comments to 79931 AT debbugs.gnu.org.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Stan Marsh <gazelle <at> xmission.com>
Cc: Coreutils <bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org>
Subject: possible option additions/changes for GNU "touch"
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 09:03:35 -0800

[Opening up a new bug report number for this, in reply to a message 
involving Bug#79907.]

On 2025-12-01 00:25, Stan Marsh wrote:

> I've often wished that "touch" had an option like -c, but the opposite
> - that is, *always* create (and generate an error if the file already
> exists) (*).

What use cases would there be for -c?

NetBSD "touch" has these options:

 -D       Don't change a file's times if they're already OK.
 -R FILE  Like -r FILE, but don't follow symlinks.

I.e., NetBSD -h affects only whether symlinks are followed in the target 
file, not in the reference file. This is incompatible with GNU touch. 
For example, with NetBSD:

   touch -Dhr SYMLINK SYMLINK

updates SYMLINK's timestamp to be that of the file it references; there 
is no easy way to do that with GNU touch. Perhaps we should change GNU 
touch to be compatible with NetBSD in this respect.

FreeBSD "touch" has this option:

  -A [-][[HH]MM]SS]
    Adjust the access and modification times by HH:MM:SS.
    This implies -c.

This is for when you have a bunch of files with wrong timestamps (e.g., 
you imported them from MS-DOS and they had the wrong timezone). This 
might be a useful flag to add to GNU "touch".

Message #8 received at 79931 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Stan Marsh <gazelle <at> xmission.com>
Cc: 79931 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#79931: possible option additions/changes for GNU "touch"
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2025 09:14:58 -0800

On 2025-12-01 09:03, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> I've often wished that "touch" had an option like -c, but the opposite
>> - that is, *always* create (and generate an error if the file already
>> exists) (*).
> 
> What use cases would there be for -c?

Sorry, I meant to write, "What use cases would there be for this new 
option?"

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.