Hi!
> The bottom line: rmdir(".") is gone. Replace it with portable equivalent,
> namely
> p = getcwd(pwd, sizeof(pwd));
> if (!p)
> /* handle error - ERANGE or ENOENT */
> rmdir(p);
> Shell equivalent is rmdir `pwd`. Also portable.
...when you are lucky and all
Hi!
The bottom line: rmdir(".") is gone. Replace it with portable equivalent,
namely
p = getcwd(pwd, sizeof(pwd));
if (!p)
/* handle error - ERANGE or ENOENT */
rmdir(p);
Shell equivalent is rmdir `pwd`. Also portable.
...when you are lucky and all
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Benson Chow wrote:
> Not very portable at all...
>
> hpux = HP/UX 10.2
>
> hpux:~/foo$ rmdir .
> rmdir: cannot remove .. or .
Same on FreeBSD, by the way
bash-2.04# uname -a
FreeBSD freebsd.redhat.de 5.0-20001112-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.0-20001112-CURRENT
#0: Sun Nov 12 14:04:55
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Benson Chow wrote:
Not very portable at all...
hpux = HP/UX 10.2
hpux:~/foo$ rmdir .
rmdir: cannot remove .. or .
Same on FreeBSD, by the way
bash-2.04# uname -a
FreeBSD freebsd.redhat.de 5.0-20001112-CURRENT FreeBSD 5.0-20001112-CURRENT
#0: Sun Nov 12 14:04:55 GMT
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:56:18PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hardlinks have nothing to do with `rmdir .`. See rmdir . as the equivalent
> pointed out by Alexander: "rmdir `pwd`". `pwd` returns the same thing
You can't delete immutable
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:28:38PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> That's precisely what I've already done. grep for IS_DEADDIR() and notice
Fine ;)
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > Do we have enough protection to ensure this for other filesystems?
>
> Note that this has nothing to do with `rmdir .`. You will run into the
> mentioned issue just now with '''rmdir "`pwd`"'''. I've not checked
> the other fses but I would put
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:47:35PM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 03:06:35PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 07:41:21AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > > Not exactly valid, since a file could be created in that "pinned" directory
> >
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 03:06:35PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 07:41:21AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> > Not exactly valid, since a file could be created in that "pinned" directory
> > after the rmdir...
>
> In 2.2.x no file can be created in the pinned
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 02:47:35PM +, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 03:06:35PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 07:41:21AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
Not exactly valid, since a file could be created in that "pinned" directory
after
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Do we have enough protection to ensure this for other filesystems?
Note that this has nothing to do with `rmdir .`. You will run into the
mentioned issue just now with '''rmdir "`pwd`"'''. I've not checked
the other fses but I would put such
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:28:38PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
That's precisely what I've already done. grep for IS_DEADDIR() and notice
Fine ;)
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ
On Mon, 08 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:56:18PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hardlinks have nothing to do with `rmdir .`. See rmdir . as the equivalent
pointed out by Alexander: "rmdir `pwd`". `pwd` returns the same thing
You can't delete immutable
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> As long as nobody tried to remove ".", nothing is serialized.
> You can do your lookups in parallel since they can all grab
> the read lock at once.
Bzzzert. At which point do you take that lock for rmdir("foo/bar/barf/.")?
> Linux can tell
Alexander Viro writes:
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>> Alexander Viro writes:
>>
>>> [...] If you really need to destroy the directory
>>> that happens to be your pwd - sorry, no reliable way to do that without
>>> interesting locking. On _any_ UNIX out there. 2.2 included. It
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:50:44PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > But in fact it fails with EINVAL, and
> >
> > [EINVAL]: The path argument contains a last component that is dot.
>
> I can't confirm. The specs I'm checking
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Alexander Viro writes:
>
> > [...] If you really need to destroy the directory
> > that happens to be your pwd - sorry, no reliable way to do that without
> > interesting locking. On _any_ UNIX out there. 2.2 included. It will
> > happily give
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
>
> > Not exactly valid, since a file could be created in that "pinned" directory
> > after the rmdir...
>
> No, it couldn't (if you can show a testcase when it would - please do, you've
> found a bug). Moreover, busy directories can be removed in 2.4
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> Not exactly valid, since a file could be created in that "pinned" directory
> after the rmdir...
No, it couldn't (if you can show a testcase when it would - please do, you've
found a bug). Moreover, busy directories can be removed in 2.4 quite fine -
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 07:41:21AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
> Not exactly valid, since a file could be created in that "pinned" directory
> after the rmdir...
In 2.2.x no file can be created in the pinned directory after the rmdir.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Alexander Viro writes:
> [...] If you really need to destroy the directory
> that happens to be your pwd - sorry, no reliable way to do that without
> interesting locking. On _any_ UNIX out there. 2.2 included. It will
> happily give you -ENOENT and refuse to perform the action above in
> case
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:28:33PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:58:20PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > It's a hell of a pain wrt locking. You need to lock the parent, but it can
>
> This is a no-brainer and bad implementation, but shows it's obviously right
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 01:01:25AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:27:21PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > However, it is against all UNIX standards, and Linux-2.4 will explicitly
>
> I may be missing something but apparently SuSv2 allows it, you can check here:
- Received message begins Here -
>
> Hello Al,
>
> why `rmdir .` is been deprecated in 2.4.x? I wrote software that depends on
> `rmdir .` to work (it's local software only for myself so I don't care that it
> may not work on unix) and I'm getting flooded by failing cronjobs
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Stefan Traby wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:58:20PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> > Shell equivalent is rmdir `pwd`. Also portable.
>
> Very portable - not.
>
> rmdir "`pwd`" !!!
OK, got me on that. Yes, you'll need quoting here. Sorry.
Notice that there
> I trust your specs said so, however I'm not sure which are the specs
> we should follow for Linux.
> At least for LFS 2.2.x fixage I always followed the SuSv2 specs
We are Linux, and free to do whatever we want.
However, following POSIX makes a large body of software available.
It would be
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Stefan Traby wrote:
> "rmdir `pwd`" is required to fail (at least under csh, bash, ksh) if the
> path component contains a white space and thereof it can't be a valid
> replacement for Andreas "rmdir ." which was what Al initially suggested.
>
> Yes, I'm very pickey about
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Stefan Traby wrote:
"rmdir `pwd`" is required to fail (at least under csh, bash, ksh) if the
path component contains a white space and thereof it can't be a valid
replacement for Andreas "rmdir ." which was what Al initially suggested.
Yes, I'm very pickey about that;
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Stefan Traby wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:58:20PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
Shell equivalent is rmdir `pwd`. Also portable.
Very portable - not.
rmdir "`pwd`" !!!
OK, got me on that. Yes, you'll need quoting here. Sorry.
Notice that there are two
- Received message begins Here -
Hello Al,
why `rmdir .` is been deprecated in 2.4.x? I wrote software that depends on
`rmdir .` to work (it's local software only for myself so I don't care that it
may not work on unix) and I'm getting flooded by failing cronjobs since
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 07:41:21AM -0600, Jesse Pollard wrote:
Not exactly valid, since a file could be created in that "pinned" directory
after the rmdir...
In 2.2.x no file can be created in the pinned directory after the rmdir.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Jesse Pollard wrote:
Not exactly valid, since a file could be created in that "pinned" directory
after the rmdir...
No, it couldn't (if you can show a testcase when it would - please do, you've
found a bug). Moreover, busy directories can be removed in 2.4 quite fine -
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:50:44PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Andrea Arcangeli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But in fact it fails with EINVAL, and
[EINVAL]: The path argument contains a last component that is dot.
I can't confirm. The specs I'm checking are here:
Alexander Viro writes:
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
Alexander Viro writes:
[...] If you really need to destroy the directory
that happens to be your pwd - sorry, no reliable way to do that without
interesting locking. On _any_ UNIX out there. 2.2 included. It will
happily
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
As long as nobody tried to remove ".", nothing is serialized.
You can do your lookups in parallel since they can all grab
the read lock at once.
Bzzzert. At which point do you take that lock for rmdir("foo/bar/barf/.")?
Linux can tell where
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:28:29PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> But at least "rmdir `pwd`" is not _required_ to fail, like rmdir("."/"..").
"rmdir `pwd`" is required to fail (at least under csh, bash, ksh) if the
path component contains a white space and thereof it can't be a valid
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 02:55:15AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [wakko@:/home/wakko/test] rmdir "`pwd`"
> > rmdir: /home/wakko/test: Invalid argument
>
> Some other OS with a yet different retval? :)
It can be much worse (irix-6.5.4):
bash# mkdir x; cd x; rmdir
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 08:37:22PM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
> [wakko@:/home/wakko/test] rmdir "`pwd`"
> rmdir: /home/wakko/test: Invalid argument
Some other OS with a yet different retval? :)
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
> Not very portable at all...
>
> hpux = HP/UX 10.2
>
> hpux:~$ mkdir foo
> hpux:~$ cd foo
> hpux:~/foo$ rmdir "`pwd`"
> rmdir: /home/blc/foo: Cannot remove mountable directory
> hpux:~/foo$ rmdir .
> rmdir: cannot remove .. or .
> hpux:~/foo$ rmdir /home/blc/foo
> rmdir: /home/blc/foo: Cannot
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:27:21PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> However, it is against all UNIX standards, and Linux-2.4 will explicitly
I may be missing something but apparently SuSv2 allows it, you can check here:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/rmdir.html
Infact
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 04:08:58PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
>> Andrea, fix your code. Linux-only stuff is OK when there is no
>
>BTW, "rmdir `pwd`" is not portable either.
Indeed. Avoid it if you can.
But at
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:04:24PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
>> Racy. Nonportable. Has portable and simple equivalent. Again, don't
>> bother with chdir at all - if you know the name of directory even
>> ../name will
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:50:44PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > But in fact it fails with EINVAL, and
> >
> > [EINVAL]: The path argument contains a last component that is dot.
>
> I can't confirm. The specs I'm checking
From: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But in fact it fails with EINVAL, and
>
> [EINVAL]: The path argument contains a last component that is dot.
I can't confirm. The specs I'm checking are here:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/rmdir.html
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:11:08PM -0700, Benson Chow wrote:
> Not very portable at all...
>
> hpux = HP/UX 10.2
>
> hpux:~$ mkdir foo
> hpux:~$ cd foo
> hpux:~/foo$ rmdir "`pwd`"
> rmdir: /home/blc/foo: Cannot remove mountable directory
> hpux:~/foo$ rmdir .
> rmdir: cannot remove .. or .
>
it's done with it...
-bc
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Stefan Traby wrote:
> Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:54:51 +0100
> From: Stefan Traby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Alexander Viro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: `r
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 04:08:58PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Andrea, fix your code. Linux-only stuff is OK when there is no
BTW, "rmdir `pwd`" is not portable either.
> portable way to achieve the same result. In your situation such way indeed
> exists and is prefectly doable in
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:58:20PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Shell equivalent is rmdir `pwd`. Also portable.
Very portable - not.
rmdir "`pwd`" !!!
--
ciao -
Stefan
" ( cd /lib ; ln -s libBrokenLocale-2.2.so libNiedersachsen.so ) "
Stefan Traby
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:56:18PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> You think that it fails with EBUSY. That would be allowed but not required:
>
> [EBUSY]: The directory to be removed is currently in use by
> the system or some process and the implementation
> considers this
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:04:24PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > Racy. Nonportable. Has portable and simple equivalent. Again, don't
> > bother with chdir at all - if you know the name of directory even
> > ../name will work. It's not about the
> why `rmdir .` is been deprecated in 2.4.x?
> `rmdir .` makes perfect sense, the cwd dentry remains pinned
You think that it fails with EBUSY. That would be allowed but not required:
[EBUSY]: The directory to be removed is currently in use by
the system or some process and the
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:04:24PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Racy. Nonportable. Has portable and simple equivalent. Again, don't
> bother with chdir at all - if you know the name of directory even
> ../name will work. It's not about the current directory. It's about
> the invalid last
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:58:20PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> It's a hell of a pain wrt locking. You need to lock the parent, but it can
This is a no-brainer and bad implementation, but shows it's obviously right
wrt locking. (pseudocode, I ignored the uaccess details and all the other not
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> in userspace, but I think the old behaviour was more flexible (it was also
> showing how much our dcache is powerful) and I still don't see why it's been
> removed. Maybe it was to remove a branch from a fast path? (if so I don't
> think it was a
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hello Al,
>
> why `rmdir .` is been deprecated in 2.4.x? I wrote software that depends on
> `rmdir .` to work (it's local software only for myself so I don't care that it
> may not work on unix) and I'm getting flooded by failing cronjobs since I
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:31:29PM -0500, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
> I fail to see why this is useful. you can't do anything in the directory
> afterwards.
>
> bash# mkdir foobar
> bash# cd foobar/
> bash# ls
> bash# rmdir .
> bash# touch foo
> touch: foo: Operation not permitted
> bash#
I fail to see why this is useful. you can't do anything in the directory
afterwards.
bash# mkdir foobar
bash# cd foobar/
bash# ls
bash# rmdir .
bash# touch foo
touch: foo: Operation not permitted
bash# ls
Whats the point of it?
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hello Al,
>
Hello Al,
why `rmdir .` is been deprecated in 2.4.x? I wrote software that depends on
`rmdir .` to work (it's local software only for myself so I don't care that it
may not work on unix) and I'm getting flooded by failing cronjobs since I put
2.4.0 on such machine. `rmdir .` makes perfect
Hello Al,
why `rmdir .` is been deprecated in 2.4.x? I wrote software that depends on
`rmdir .` to work (it's local software only for myself so I don't care that it
may not work on unix) and I'm getting flooded by failing cronjobs since I put
2.4.0 on such machine. `rmdir .` makes perfect
I fail to see why this is useful. you can't do anything in the directory
afterwards.
bash# mkdir foobar
bash# cd foobar/
bash# ls
bash# rmdir .
bash# touch foo
touch: foo: Operation not permitted
bash# ls
Whats the point of it?
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hello Al,
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:31:29PM -0500, Mohammad A. Haque wrote:
I fail to see why this is useful. you can't do anything in the directory
afterwards.
bash# mkdir foobar
bash# cd foobar/
bash# ls
bash# rmdir .
bash# touch foo
touch: foo: Operation not permitted
bash# ls
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
Hello Al,
why `rmdir .` is been deprecated in 2.4.x? I wrote software that depends on
`rmdir .` to work (it's local software only for myself so I don't care that it
may not work on unix) and I'm getting flooded by failing cronjobs since I put
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
in userspace, but I think the old behaviour was more flexible (it was also
showing how much our dcache is powerful) and I still don't see why it's been
removed. Maybe it was to remove a branch from a fast path? (if so I don't
think it was a good
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:58:20PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
It's a hell of a pain wrt locking. You need to lock the parent, but it can
This is a no-brainer and bad implementation, but shows it's obviously right
wrt locking. (pseudocode, I ignored the uaccess details and all the other not
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:04:24PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
Racy. Nonportable. Has portable and simple equivalent. Again, don't
bother with chdir at all - if you know the name of directory even
../name will work. It's not about the current directory. It's about
the invalid last component
why `rmdir .` is been deprecated in 2.4.x?
`rmdir .` makes perfect sense, the cwd dentry remains pinned
You think that it fails with EBUSY. That would be allowed but not required:
[EBUSY]: The directory to be removed is currently in use by
the system or some process and the
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:04:24PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
Racy. Nonportable. Has portable and simple equivalent. Again, don't
bother with chdir at all - if you know the name of directory even
../name will work. It's not about the current
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 09:56:18PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You think that it fails with EBUSY. That would be allowed but not required:
[EBUSY]: The directory to be removed is currently in use by
the system or some process and the implementation
considers this to be
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 12:58:20PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
Shell equivalent is rmdir `pwd`. Also portable.
Very portable - not.
rmdir "`pwd`" !!!
--
ciao -
Stefan
" ( cd /lib ; ln -s libBrokenLocale-2.2.so libNiedersachsen.so ) "
Stefan Traby
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 04:08:58PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
Andrea, fix your code. Linux-only stuff is OK when there is no
BTW, "rmdir `pwd`" is not portable either.
portable way to achieve the same result. In your situation such way indeed
exists and is prefectly doable in
it's done with it...
-bc
On Mon, 8 Jan 2001, Stefan Traby wrote:
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 22:54:51 +0100
From: Stefan Traby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Alexander Viro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: `rmdir .` doesn't work in 2.4
On Mon, Ja
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:11:08PM -0700, Benson Chow wrote:
Not very portable at all...
hpux = HP/UX 10.2
hpux:~$ mkdir foo
hpux:~$ cd foo
hpux:~/foo$ rmdir "`pwd`"
rmdir: /home/blc/foo: Cannot remove mountable directory
hpux:~/foo$ rmdir .
rmdir: cannot remove .. or .
hpux:~/foo$
From: Andrea Arcangeli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But in fact it fails with EINVAL, and
[EINVAL]: The path argument contains a last component that is dot.
I can't confirm. The specs I'm checking are here:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/rmdir.html
That
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 11:50:44PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Andrea Arcangeli [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But in fact it fails with EINVAL, and
[EINVAL]: The path argument contains a last component that is dot.
I can't confirm. The specs I'm checking are here:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Andrea Arcangeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 01:04:24PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
Racy. Nonportable. Has portable and simple equivalent. Again, don't
bother with chdir at all - if you know the name of directory even
../name will work. It's
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Andrea Arcangeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 04:08:58PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
Andrea, fix your code. Linux-only stuff is OK when there is no
BTW, "rmdir `pwd`" is not portable either.
Indeed. Avoid it if you can.
But at least
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:27:21PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
However, it is against all UNIX standards, and Linux-2.4 will explicitly
I may be missing something but apparently SuSv2 allows it, you can check here:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/rmdir.html
Infact
Not very portable at all...
hpux = HP/UX 10.2
hpux:~$ mkdir foo
hpux:~$ cd foo
hpux:~/foo$ rmdir "`pwd`"
rmdir: /home/blc/foo: Cannot remove mountable directory
hpux:~/foo$ rmdir .
rmdir: cannot remove .. or .
hpux:~/foo$ rmdir /home/blc/foo
rmdir: /home/blc/foo: Cannot remove
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 08:37:22PM -0500, Wakko Warner wrote:
[wakko@removed:/home/wakko/test] rmdir "`pwd`"
rmdir: /home/wakko/test: Invalid argument
Some other OS with a yet different retval? :)
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 02:55:15AM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[wakko@removed:/home/wakko/test] rmdir "`pwd`"
rmdir: /home/wakko/test: Invalid argument
Some other OS with a yet different retval? :)
It can be much worse (irix-6.5.4):
bash# mkdir x; cd x; rmdir
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:28:29PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
But at least "rmdir `pwd`" is not _required_ to fail, like rmdir("."/"..").
"rmdir `pwd`" is required to fail (at least under csh, bash, ksh) if the
path component contains a white space and thereof it can't be a valid
replacement
81 matches
Mail list logo
