Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!cwruecmp!hal!ncoast!allbery From: allbery@ncoast.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.bugs.sys5 Subject: Re: mvdir, is or is not a bug? Message-ID: <1952@ncoast.UUCP> Date: Mon, 26-Jan-87 01:52:34 EST Article-I.D.: ncoast.1952 Posted: Mon Jan 26 01:52:34 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 27-Jan-87 02:09:55 EST References: <376@oblio.UUCP> <1987Jan14.123035.20364@sq.uucp> <512@csun.UUCP> <402@yabbie.rmit.oz> Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) Followup-To: comp.bugs.sys5 Organization: Cleveland Public Access UNIX, Cleveland, OH Lines: 23 As quoted from <402@yabbie.rmit.oz> by rcodi@yabbie.rmit.oz (Ian Donaldson): +--------------- | If there is a better explanation of why mvdir was separated out from mv, | I and probably many others are all ears. +--------------- I was under the impression that it was done for the same reason that rmdir isn't part of rm. Under System III, mv could only move a directory from one name to another if it stayed within the same parent directory. System V mv is more general; unfortunately, it now has to deal with `.' and `..'. Written correctly, mv/mvdir could be used like rm/rmdir by ordinary users. It is my hope that the separation of the two is a first step in doing this, the next step being the trapping of illegal situations like that done by rmdir and rm -r. ++Brandon -- ____ ______________ / \ / __ __ __ \ Brandon S. Allbery !ncoast!allbery ___ | /__> / \ / \ aXcess Co., Consulting ncoast!allbery@Case.CSNET / \ | | `--, `--, 6615 Center St. #A1-105 (...@relay.CS.NET) | | \__/ \__/ \__/ Mentor, OH 44060-4101 \____/ \______________/ +1 216 781 6201