copy 54.11 fails to indicate non-extant file/folder and returns successfully

I am not sure if this has been updated since, but it seems as though attempting to copy a non-existent file(s) (at least, in a non-extant parent directory) results in silent output and return code of 0.

For example:

There is no such folder


In case it matters, z420_2: is a samba share.

@rjd324
Wasnt it clear because of many bugs that no one should use those replacements over originals ?:)

There should be a newer version of copy:



Does 54.14 work for your use case?

@rjd324

Thanks for the report, the bug has been identified and fixed. We will have a new version on Updater shortly. We use the same code base for the 68K and PPC versions. Te bug you reported doesn't appear in the 68K version of the command but only the PPC complile. It seems that in PPC/V54 the MatchFirst() returns ERROR_NO_MORE_ENTRIES even when when the source path doesn't exist. While in 68K/V46 it returns ERROR_OBJECT_NOT_FOUND.


@kas1e

We are actively developing these commands every month and improving them for users of the Enhancer Software (OS4), the A600GS and A1200NG platforms. If a bug is found, it is fixed quickly which is important. There are not many bugs identified now after so many years of hard work. The Commands are mature and stable.

The importance of these Commands are that they are an independent code base, actively developed and regularly updated for end-users. They are not subject to bankruptcy processes/legal issues/licence conditions holding back development. We encourage users to use our Commands set, report any issues back to support continued development.

@kas1e

While I agree that they shouldn't have even been written, since they already exist, if we doesn't even test them these bugs will never be discovered

@samo79

The Commands are important to us having an independent code base.

Without these Commands, we could not release our current hardware or future projects without having to licence them from a third party. We tried the third party licencing before: it led to slow/stalled development while they sorted out their frequent legal issues, retrictions to our development goals, delays to our hardware projects and high costs.

In normal situation - for example with OS which is continuously developed or free for 3rd-party improvement - we not need such command replacements. But situation is like it is.
Thus makes alternatives without license-lock is one of the ways howto continue development.
From this point of view I think that amigakit makes good job here.

@sailor
I don't they are free of license-lock - it's just that the rights for these reimplementations are now with AmigaKit.
So same-same from an outsider perspective, except for the version numbering mixups and name clashes :)

@rjd324

Copy v54.19 is now available to download from Updater utility. This should resolve your bug report. Thank you!

@graff

The difference is that we are not licencing software which is involved in a long standing legal dispute. It is pointless and commercial suicide investing money, resources, manpower for software development work into source code that has disputed ownership and rights. This is the reason several years ago we started our own clean code base that is free from the legal restrictions and problems that are still ongoing and plauging OS4.

Problem that nothing new added in this reimplementations, just a buggy copy of originals with restricted functionality. Next, they not open sourced mean tied the same ussues: controled by one person giving another variant from another company.

Also, as they want to have it be the same for os3 and os4 mean more messy code, and no use of specific os4 only bits. Also, they know no internals of dos.library and what new were added by Colin in last years, mean their variants its just buggy os3 versions compiled for os4. Os4 users should be for sure not install those commands if they not want troubles.

I even did't want to guess why the reimplement easy small commands and not real stuff like graphics.library, or dos.library, or whatever else : that hard. But wrote clock, calendar or buggy copy command surely more important.

And in end of all, decission by Mattew versionin reimplementations with 54.x theme, cleary point on cheap dirty move, like pretending to be same commands, just better. See, ppls now wrote about bugs in some of their commands with point on 54.x, make it think like it bugs in originals. Blew!

Now, when update3 on horisont, some users will have a mess for sure mixing originals with those reimplementations. But that will be their problem then. But base line for update3 surely NO other than originals parts of os should be in use.

Watching this situation play out, there doesn't seem to be any meaningful beta testing. The users paying money for Enhancer appear to be doing much of the testing, which is not the way to create confidence in the product.