Re: dh_movefiles, tar vs. mv
Eric Dorland <email@example.com> schrieb:
> * Frank Küster (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>> dh_movefiles internally uses tar to move file contents. I'm not sure why
>> it doesn't use mv, is it because mv moves the file block-by-block and
>> thus starts removing parts of the file before it is completely written,
>> and hence is less save?
>> Anyway: If I am only going to move complete subdirectories from the temp
>> tree to the package trees, is it in this case safe to use mv? It's much
>> faster, and it would safe space (because dh_movefiles only removes the
>> originals after the complete tarball has been extracted).
> Uhh, who cares? dh_movefiles has been superseded by dh_install.
Well, fine. But the question remains: dh_install uses cp, not mv. What
is the problem with using mv? And would it be safe to use mv if I only
move complete directories?
Inst. f. Biochemie der Univ. Zürich