> On Oct 18, 2016, at 17:35, Linda Walsh <coreut...@tlinx.org> wrote:
> Assaf Gordon wrote:
>>> rmdir -p ./a/b/c # get error msg, but a,b,c removed.
> I see... so in ".a/b/c", a,b,c are removed, but the error
> comes in "."?
> Ok, but is "-p" a posix switch in mkdir or rmdir?
Yes, it is defined in posix for both mkdir(1) and rmdir(1):
>> However, by definition, when 'rmdir' traverses the directories on the given
>> the directory 'a/..' is not empty (it contains 'a') - so this must fail.
> with "-p"? Am talking about the case where you create a dir with
> "mkdir -p "$dirname"
> and later, rmdir -p "$dirname" (where dirname is passed as a parameter, but
> is not user-input).
Yes. By posix definition, For "rmdir -p DIR" where DIR contains multiple path
rmdir should behave as if run with "rmdir -p $(dirname DIR)".
And for example:
$ dirname "a/../b"
And trying to call rmdir(2) on "a/.." will fail (definitely fails on Linux
kernel, though I suspect on other systems as well).
> Right, but am trying to get rmdir to be a useful
> "opposite" to a "mkdir" -- at least w/r/t "-p"...
"useful" is somewhat subjective.
For the more common case of directories without ".." or "." - this works quite
and that is very likely the intended goal:
mkdir -p a/b/c
rmdir -p a/b/c
As the current behavior is mandated by POSIX, If you want to suggest a
the best place to suggest this is to the posix group (
If the standard for 'rmdir(1)' is modified or adjusted, GNU coreutils will
surely follow suit.
> But is -p's behavior in mkdir and rmdir mandated by POSIX?
Yes, see above links.