Re: renameutils 0.6.0

[Bob Proulx]

Brian Hall wrote:
> (cc: to bug-coreutils in case this is a coreutils problem)

I did not see anything in your posting that looked like a coreutils
problem.

> We have talked about this before, but I have never been able to get imv 
> to work without patching it to change the order of the arguments passed 
> to "mv". icp has the same issue. qmv works fine.

What is "imv"?

> The order of the arguments passed my imv doesn't work:
> 
> > strace imv setup-gentoo-chroot
> execve("/usr/bin/mv", ["mv", "setup-gentoo-chroot", "--", 
> "setup-gentoo-chroot.sh"], [/* 68 vars */]) = 0

You have word wrapped that line in sending it.  I am sure you meant to
have it all on one line as in the following, right?

   execve("/usr/bin/mv", ["mv", "setup-gentoo-chroot", "--", 
"setup-gentoo-chroot.sh"], [/* 68 vars */]) = 0

That is clearly the wrong ordering.

> mv: when moving multiple files, last argument must be a directory
> Try `mv --help' for more information.

Yep.

> Adding a leading "\" to the mv command, or specifying the path doesn't 
> help:
> 
> > \mv setup-gentoo-chroot -- setup-gentoo-chroot.sh

To avoid an alias you can quote the command on the command line.
Quoting can take various forms.  One is \command.  Another is
'command'.  Yet another is "command".  If a comman is quoted then no
alias expansion will be done by Bourne-like shells.

But nothing you have shown me looks like an alias problem.  Aliases
are expanded at the command line.  But you apparently have a program
which is running the commands from an exec(2) call.  This will not be
in a path that expands aliases.  I think our pursuit of aliases as a
problem here is just a red herring throwing you off of the scent of
the real problem.

> This order works:
> 
> > mv -- setup-gentoo-chroot.sh setup-gentoo-chroot

That looks perfectly reasonable.

> as does this (which I think was your intent):
> 
> > mv -v -- setup-gentoo-chroot setup-gentoo-chroot.sh
> `setup-gentoo-chroot' -> `setup-gentoo-chroot.sh'

Perfectly reasonable.

Pass the verbose -v option to mv.  Pass -- specifying that there are
no more options.  This protects against filenames that start with a
dash.  Otherwise you may be moving a file that starts with a dash it
it would look like an option.  So specifying -- is a good safe way to
avoid confusing tools that filename arguments might be an option to
the command.

  touch -- -a-file-with-dashes
  ls -ldog -- -a-file-with-dashes
  rm -- -a-file-with-dashes

> The man page for mv simply says that "--" should "terminate the option 
> list". Hmmm. I guess it expects "--" to occur as the last NON-FILE 
> argument?

Yes.  That is standard behavior.  See the standards documentation for
more information.

  http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/mv.html
  
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/xbd_chap12.html#tag_12_02

> If so, puttting it in between the file arguments is the source 
> of the problem. Do you have a reference that says something like
> 
> mv name1 -- name2
> 
> is legal syntax?

It's not.  Unless name2, the last argument, is a directory and both
"name1" and "--" are files to be moved there.  But who would name a
file "--"?  Of course stranger things have happened.  Looks like a
simple bug.

Bob