1

As I'm pretty used to the Linux terminal, I set up a bash shell on my Windows XP command prompt by following the instructions in this article:

http://www.techsutram.com/2009/05/bash-environment-on-windows-this-is-not.html

I particularly wanted to settle for something light and compact and I get the impression that Cygwin is a pretty large distribution which I wanted to avoid.

It works really well for the most part but when trying to move a directory like this:

mv directory/another_directory .

I get:

mv: can't open directory/another_directory

I realise that this could be a distribution specific issue but if anyone has come across something similar could you please help?

It's odd because I have no problems renaming directories or moving files. Only when trying to move a directory.

Many thanks!

Improve this question
6
  • what happens when you cd to the sub_dir and try mving it that way?
    – mcalex
    Commented Dec 21, 2012 at 11:51
  • I've downloaded a newer version of 'mv' and this seems to have fixed it, as the older one is dated at 1997, I assume it's a compatibility issue. Not sure what's going on underneath :) With the older one, moving the directory from its parent directory didn't work either.
    – Nobilis
    Commented Dec 21, 2012 at 12:02
  • @Nobilis Isn't a mv syntax like this: mv -t target_dir source_dir ?
    – mnmnc
    Commented Dec 21, 2012 at 12:07
  • mv version from 1997? O_o i'm surprised it worked at all.
    – mnmnc
    Commented Dec 21, 2012 at 12:10
  • @mnmnc You can use the syntax above for moving directories too, I guess the -t option has been added so that the user is certain the files will be moved, not renamed. -t isn't a possible option for this 'mv' util under Windows though. The online man page for mv has the following for it: mv [OPTION]... [-T] SOURCE DEST mv [OPTION]... SOURCE... DIRECTORY mv [OPTION]... -t DIRECTORY SOURCE...
    – Nobilis
    Commented Dec 21, 2012 at 12:12

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

I fixed this problem by replacing the 'mv' application (dated at 1997) with a newer one (dated at 2001) located in the Unix utils pack discussed in the link.

Perhaps it was a compatibility issue with the newer version intended to address incompatibilities related to Windows XP (as they seem to have come out in the same year).

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .