On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 10:15:26AM -0500, Steve Siegfried wrote: > Dave Sherohman wrote: > > cp is smart enough to complain that "`foo' and `foo' are the same file" > > if you try to copy something onto itself, so I can't see why cpio > > should destroy the file in that case. > > > > Because cp(1) has logic that checks. cpio(1) doesn't. Both commands use > unlink(2) to remove files. Right. I didn't mean "should" in the sense of "what code causes it", but rather "why would it be The Right Thing for cp to have that check and cpio to omit it?" -- With the arrest of Dimitry Sklyarov it has become apparent that it is not safe for non US software engineers to visit the United States. - Alan Cox "To prevent unauthorized reading..." - Adobe eBook reader license