home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Usenet 1994 January
/
usenetsourcesnewsgroupsinfomagicjanuary1994.iso
/
sources
/
std_unix
/
v21
/
090
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1990-12-05
|
1KB
From std-unix-request@uunet.uu.net Sat Sep 8 09:20:38 1990
Received: from cs.utexas.edu by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
id AA18190; Sat, 8 Sep 90 09:20:38 -0400
Posted-Date: 7 Sep 90 16:12:07 GMT
Received: by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.76)
From: cowan@marob.masa.com (John Cowan)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: Query about P1003.2 'cp' utility
Message-Id: <496@usenix.ORG>
References: <490@usenix.ORG> <DJM.90Aug17151613@jolt.eng.umd.edu> <439@usenix.ORG>
Sender: std-unix@usenix.ORG
Organization: ESCC, New York City
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
Date: 7 Sep 90 16:12:07 GMT
Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
From: cowan@marob.masa.com (John Cowan)
In article <490@usenix.ORG> caywood@teb.larc.nasa.gov (John Caywood) writes:
>I take this to mean that, no, cp doesn't unlink an existing file, but
>it truncates it upon opening under these conditions. Consequently,
>yes, djm is correct, cp doesn't unlink. I don't understand, though,
>why opening with O_TRUNC isn't equivalent.
The difference between unlinking before opening and opening with O_TRUNC is,
of course, that the former course of action can change the file's owner,
group, and mode settings, whereas the latter course of action cannot.
--
cowan@marob.masa.com (aka ...!hombre!marob!cowan)
e'osai ko sarji la lojban
Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 90