🚀 go-pugleaf

From:  caywood@teb.larc.nasa.gov (John Caywood)

In Volume 21, Number 42, djm@eng.umd.edu (David J. MacKenzie) writes:
> In draft 10, cp never ever unlinks files.
> In draft 10, all -f does in cp is turn off a previous -i.
> I'm going to object to this on the FSF ballot; I think -f should make
> it unlink (unconditionally), like it does for mv, ln, and rm, or else
> not be specified at all in the standard, since it's not existing
> practice.

Based on this article, I was about ready to submit an objection in
support of the above.  On closer inspection, however, I think the
objection is nullified by an earlier clause:
   (3) If source_file exists....
       (a) If dest_file exists....
	   [1] If -i is in effect....
	   [2] If dest_file isn't writable....
	   [3] A file descriptor shall be obtained by performing
	       actions equivalent to the POSIX.1 open() function
	       call using dest_file as the path argument, and the
	       bitwise inclusive OR of O_WRONLY and O_TRUNC as
	       the oflag argument.

I take this to mean that, no, cp doesn't unlink an existing file, but
it truncates it upon opening under these conditions.  Consequently,
yes, djm is correct, cp doesn't unlink.  I don't understand, though,
why opening with O_TRUNC isn't equivalent.

   John Caywood, balloting .2 on behalf of NASA Langley Research Center

Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 84