"William A. Rowe, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > My personal preference is that the remove continues to run, leaving only > droppings it can't remove. Nothing irks me more than fixing the 'one file' > that couldn't be removed, only to trip over the next one on the next pass. > And save the first failure result for return to the caller.
I agree. I'm thinking of rewriting it to leave files behind. I suspect the routine could return either APR_SUCCESS (if nothing but was left behind), or some not-yet-invented error code that specifically means it wasn't able to remove everything. > Does it make sense to apply some lstat check against the tree, such that > symlinks' targets aren't blown away? I'm not clear if your patch protects > that or not. Good idea.
