Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!sri-unix!ctnews!pyramid!prls!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse From: mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: stupidity in directory management? Message-ID: <888@mcgill-vision.UUCP> Date: Fri, 11-Sep-87 05:15:55 EDT Article-I.D.: mcgill-v.888 Posted: Fri Sep 11 05:15:55 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 22-Sep-87 01:34:42 EDT References: <9054@brl-adm.ARPA> Organization: McGill University, Montreal Lines: 34 In article <9054@brl-adm.ARPA>, rbj@icst-cmr.arpa (Root Boy Jim) writes: > From: der Mouse >> mkdir teensy >> mv jumbo/* teensy >> rmdir jumbo >> mv teensy jumbo >> which works durn near everywhere? > Does it really? I thought TPC had problems moving directory names > outside of their parent directory, or have they fixed that already? Apparently they do. For once (:-) I posted without being certain of my facts (and got lots of mail about it, too). I just assumed that nobody would be perverse enough to build a mv incapable of such a natural, necessary operation. > From: Steve Alter >> Now the problem with all of these is that the new directory has no >> guarantee that its mode/ownerships will match the old one! For that matter, most of these assume that whoever is performing this whole operation has write permission in jumbo/..! > Good point. How about: > mkdir teeny > mv jumbo/* teeny > mv teeny/* jumbo > rmdir teeny > With the same caveats about the `dotfiles' that der Mouse mentioned. Wasn't the main point of this whole exercise to shrink jumbo (witness the names chosen)? Or was it to sort the names, which, of course, your suggestion does perfectly well? der Mouse (mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp)