Re: mv --reply=no needs an alternative

[Kamil Dudka]

Hello Mike,

there is an alternative: 'mv -n'. Which version of coreutils are you using? 
What does 'mv --version' say?


Kamil


On Tuesday 03 March 2009 16:06:44 Mike McWilliam wrote:
> Hello All
>
>            I have read many explainations why '--reply=no' does not
> work as expected. I am dumbfounded why the hundreds of posts out there
> neglect the fact there is no way to move safely AND QUIETLY. Yet
> discuss at great length about how the documentation is misleading, and
> that this particular option is defined behaviour for this very
> specific behavior. If you ask me the mv command is flawed, like I say
> in my subject line, there is no alternative for safe AND QUIET moving.
> If you wanted a special "--reply=no" then rename the option, like
> "--reply-obscure-case=no" should be implemented. Yes, I understand
> this non-intuitive case has been in mv long enough that changing the
> behaviour of mv would screw up MANY scripts. Yet there is also talk of
> deprecating it, and removing this option. Well if this is the case,
> then bring it back again, but allow the behaviour to do safe and quiet
> moves.
>
>            Regardless of the "--reply=no" issue, tell me how can I
> move files without overwriting? If I have to write a bash scrip I
> will, but would prefer not to.
>
> Thanks
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-coreutils mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils