On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Marko Lindqvist <cazf...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9 December 2012 01:45, Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> wrote: >> On 12/08/2012 12:30 PM, PICCA Frédéric-Emmanuel wrote: >> >>> the right fix is to avoid removing core if this is a directory. >> >> Autoconf-generated 'configure' files already do that. >> That's not the issue. >> >> The only issue that has been identified is that >> 'configure' issues some annoying warnings. > > So you are saing that "we try to do the wrong thing, but as that > reliably fails, only problem are the error messages from the failure > (to do the wrong thing)"? > > As hackish solutions go, I'd consider this particular way of thinking > bad. If reliability of the normal use increases -> failure happens > less reliably when it's hackishly counted on. Agreed. Before anything, the program has to be correct. Trying to remove a directory named 'core' does not follow the intention (informally 'specification') of removing crash dump files.
Special rules (i.e., no 'core' directories) that can only be found by grepping mailing lists also seems to be less than desirable. What happens if a user aliases `rm` to `rm -rf`? Jeff _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
