Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!cornell!uw-beaver!rice!sun-spots-request From: mcvax!gould.doc.imperial.ac.uk!awm@uunet.uu.net (Aled Morris) Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun Subject: directory g+s vs. mv (was: Two bugs: sticky bit directory and ld -e) Message-ID: Date: 27 Jan 89 03:48:47 GMT References: <5761@etana.tut.fi> Sender: usenet@rice.edu Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London Lines: 21 Approved: Sun-Spots@rice.edu Original-Date: 19 Jan 89 14:40:57 GMT X-Sun-Spots-Digest: Volume 7, Issue 124, message 5 of 9 >But what happens if you use mv >to rename files without write protection in a directory with the sticky >bit and write permissions? mv happily creates a new link for the file to >be renamed, but can't remove the old link. So mv works essentially as ln. I reported this to SunUK a couple of months ago (call #30701), but all I got was a brush off, apparently from Sun US, to the effect that "its behaviour is completely reasonable". Now I can understand _why_ it was screwing up, what I was complaining about was that "mv" ought really to obey the principle of least suprise. "Gee, it's screwed up my disk, thats a suprise" :-) Aled Morris systems programmer mail: awm@doc.ic.ac.uk | Department of Computing uucp: ..!ukc!icdoc!awm | Imperial College talk: 01-589-5111x5085 | 180 Queens Gate, London SW7 2BZ [[ I reported it to hotline a couple days ago. The response I got was "we'll look into it and see if it is really a problem." --wnl ]]