Thanks for the input…I checked the cp code and there are a couple of
places where the interactive flag isn’t properly checked. It’s fixed
now and will fail with an error if neither -f nor -i is specified. I’m
not sure what you mean by -f not working though…it seemed to work fine
for me.
cheers,
–
Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x368
“You’re bound to be unhappy if you optimize everything” - Donald Knuth
Oops…disregard this please…I should learn the difference between
‘post’ and ‘reply’…(doh!)
Kris Warkentin <kewarken@qnx.com> wrote:
Thanks for the input…I checked the cp code and there are a couple of
places where the interactive flag isn’t properly checked. It’s fixed
now and will fail with an error if neither -f nor -i is specified. I’m
not sure what you mean by -f not working though…it seemed to work fine
for me.cheers,
–
Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x368
“You’re bound to be unhappy if you optimize everything” - Donald Knuth
–
Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x368
“You’re bound to be unhappy if you optimize everything” - Donald Knuth
Kris Warkentin wrote in message <995gfi$kbh$1@nntp.qnx.com>…
Thanks for the input…I checked the cp code and there are a couple of
places where the interactive flag isn’t properly checked. It’s fixed
now and will fail with an error if neither -f nor -i is specified. I’m
not sure what you mean by -f not working though…it seemed to work fine
for me.
I don’t think I was being clear. What I meant in my post was that -f was
working 100% as expected. If -f is given, and an error occurs, the error is
ignored. That’s the right behavior.
Thanks for looking in to it!