Bug 124865 - "mv -i --reply=no" silently over-writes files.
"mv -i --reply=no" silently over-writes files.
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 120742
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: coreutils (Show other bugs)
i386 Linux
medium Severity high
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Tim Waugh
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2004-05-31 12:30 EDT by Ed Price
Modified: 2007-11-30 17:10 EST (History)
0 users

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2006-02-21 14:03:53 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Ed Price 2004-05-31 12:30:41 EDT
Description of problem:

"mv -i --reply=no" is supposed to be equivalent to answering "no" to
the prompt given by "mv -i".  ie, it is supposed to NOT over-write 
existing files.  but instead, it DOES over-write existing files.  ie
it behaves exactly like "mv -i --reply=yes" (or just "mv").

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1. touch a b
2. mv -i --reply=no a b
3. ls

Actual results:
only "b" exists.

Expected results:
both "a" and "b" should exist.

Additional info:

redhat-7.2: --reply is not understood by mv.
redhat-8.0: has the bug.
rehdat-9.0: has the bug.

[edp@wpax edp]$ mkdir test
[edp@wpax edp]$ cd test
[edp@wpax test]$ touch a b
[edp@wpax test]$ ls -l
total 0
-rw-rw-r--  1 edp edp 0 May 31 12:15 a
-rw-rw-r--  1 edp edp 0 May 31 12:15 b
[edp@wpax test]$ mv -i a b
mv: overwrite `b'? no
[edp@wpax test]$ ls -l
total 0
-rw-rw-r--  1 edp edp 0 May 31 12:15 a
-rw-rw-r--  1 edp edp 0 May 31 12:15 b
[edp@wpax test]$ mv -i --reply=no a b
[edp@wpax test]$ ls -l
total 0
-rw-rw-r--  1 edp edp 0 May 31 12:15 b
[edp@wpax test]$ rpm -q --whatprovides /bin/mv
[edp@wpax test]$
Comment 1 Ed Price 2004-05-31 12:39:08 EDT
oops, it's a dupe.  (i did search first, dont know why i didnt find
the other one...)

now i don't understand what "--reply" is supposed to do.

the documentation should be improved, certainly.  and possibly
"--reply" should still be changed to work as users would reasonably

sorry for the dupe, good luck with upstream discussion :)

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 120742 ***
Comment 2 Red Hat Bugzilla 2006-02-21 14:03:53 EST
Changed to 'CLOSED' state since 'RESOLVED' has been deprecated.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.