3 ms·
To be clear it's not the choice of the meaning of -p that bothers me, it's the fact that it's inconsistent between scp and ssh. E.g.: ssh -p 2222 root@fd95
by simias 6y ago
To be clear it's not the choice of the meaning of -p that bothers me, it's the fact that it's inconsistent between scp and ssh. E.g.:
ssh -p 2222 root@fd95:74a4:b46c:1000::4219
scp -P 2222 root@[fd95:74a4:b46c:1000::4219]:/tmp/foo .
It generates a lot of editing when converting an ssh command into an scp one, or vice-versa. It's minor, but I deal with raw IPv6 hosts a lot for various reasons and it's a daily annoyance.
- dmurray 6y agoWhat I meant was, cp chose one meaning for -p, ssh chose another. scp can't match them both (so if scp had the behaviour you wanted, someone else who uses cp all the time would be confused by it).
- simias 6y agoAh I see what you mean, but in this case they could've gone back and added -P as an alias for -p in ssh for instance. Similarly, it makes sense to make the brackets mandatory for scp to distinguish the path from the address, but then why not make ssh also support this format optionally? Anyway, it's pure bikeshedding at this point, it's just that it's such a common annoyance for me that I can't help but nitpick.
- dmurray 6y ago> Ah I see what you mean, but in this case they could've gone back and added -P as an alias for -p in ssh for instance. Yeah. It's one of the 13 (of 52) unused one-letter options, but such a common one you'd think they could waste a second letter on it.