bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK

Hi Mike, the issue isn't `rm -f` exactly, it's `rm -f` with a variable that could be empty. Sure. i'm not sure we need to fully audit the tree Seems desirable to make a best effort to look at every viable case. At any rate, it should be reproducible on OpenSolaris etc., as

bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK

On 15 Dec 2021 14:48, Karl Berry wrote: > > rm -f NOTFOUND $(VAR) > i think this is an interesting route. > > I agree. > > we could do: > rm -f $(am__rm_f_notfound) ... > and am__rm_f_notfound could be set based on the configure test. > > Sounds plausible to me.

bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK

> rm -f NOTFOUND $(VAR) i think this is an interesting route. I agree. we could do: rm -f $(am__rm_f_notfound) ... and am__rm_f_notfound could be set based on the configure test. Sounds plausible to me. The "only" problem is that there are dozens or hundreds of

bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK

On 11 Dec 2021 23:19, Moritz Klammler wrote: > An alternative trick which I have used in my code and found much less > disturbing is to prepend an arbitrary, hopefully non-existent, file name > so the list of arguments will never be empty even if the variable is. > > rm -f NOTFOUND $(VAR) i

bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK

Hi folks, hope you don't mind an outsider (occasional Autotools user) joining the discussion with some trivia. On 12/11/21 22:52, Karl Berry wrote: Hi Mike, Peter, > or do we document that we expect `rm -f` to work, I don't see a reason to break working code wrt rm -f merely for

bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK

it probably comes down to being a bit clearer on what autotools' goals are and what it considers reasonable prerequisites. I'd find it hard to define precisely. As a general rule, I wouldn't want to lose support for any system that is working now, until we can be really sure that it is no

bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK

Hi Mike, Peter, > or do we document that we expect `rm -f` to work, I don't see a reason to break working code wrt rm -f merely for cosmetic purposes. test -z "$(VAR)" || rm -f $(VAR) does not actually seem "awful" to me. And I fail to see any significant gain by simplifying it.

bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK

Hi Mike, On 11/12/21 15:14, Mike Frysinger wrote: On 11 Dec 2021 09:33, Peter Johansson wrote: On 10/12/21 15:47, Mike Frysinger wrote: if it's dropped, i'm not sure how users are supposed to fix things. the error message says to install GNU coreutils, but if GNU coreutils uses automake and

bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK

On 11 Dec 2021 09:33, Peter Johansson wrote: > On 10/12/21 15:47, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > if it's dropped, i'm not sure how users are supposed to fix things. > > the error message says to install GNU coreutils, but if GNU coreutils > > uses automake and presents the same error ... > > FWIW,

bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK

Hi Mike, On 10/12/21 15:47, Mike Frysinger wrote: if it's dropped, i'm not sure how users are supposed to fix things. the error message says to install GNU coreutils, but if GNU coreutils uses automake and presents the same error ... FWIW, automake is not needed to build and install GNU

bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK

On 03 Jan 2013 20:14, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Reference: > > > [This is posted also to the automake list to ensure a wider audience. > Discussion should continue exclusively on the bug-automake list] > > OK, time to resurrect this thread.