On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:06:05 -0700, Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com wrote:
tag 10819 needinfo
thanks
On 02/15/2012 08:05 AM, jeremy.mag...@epitech.eu wrote:
Hello,
I'm writing to you to inform you of a possible bug in the linux rm
command.
I've experienced that when using by error
Davide Brini wrote:
...
At least in bash, but I suppose in other shells too,
rm -rf #*
treats the #* part as a comment, and (if you remove the -f) complains
about missing operand to rm.
That is the default, but for an interactive shell,
that behavior can be changed:
$ echo a b # c
Jim Meyering wrote:
Davide Brini wrote:
...
At least in bash, but I suppose in other shells too,
rm -rf #*
treats the #* part as a comment, and (if you remove the -f) complains
about missing operand to rm.
That is the default, but for an interactive shell,
that behavior can be
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
Jim Meyering wrote:
Davide Brini wrote:
...
At least in bash, but I suppose in other shells too,
rm -rf #*
treats the #* part as a comment, and (if you remove the -f) complains
about missing operand to rm.
That is the default, but for an interactive
Jim Meyering wrote:
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
I think Davide's point is not about the # comment ... rm won't see
that on argv anyway. The point is that 'rm -f' does not complain about
missing operands while 'rm' does:
$ rm
rm: missing operand
Try `rm --help' for more
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
Good point.
That means, the info page could be enhanced to mention that
special case (see below).
...
Subject: [PATCH] doc: document 'rm -f' better
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
* doc/coreutils.texi (rm
tags 10819 fixed
thanks
Jim Meyering wrote:
Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
Good point.
That means, the info page could be enhanced to mention that
special case (see below).
...
Subject: [PATCH] doc: document 'rm -f' better
Thanks. I've applied that with these tweaks:
Even better, thank
On 02/16/2012 03:59 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
I think Davide's point is not about the # comment ... rm won't see
that on argv anyway. The point is that 'rm -f' does not complain about
missing operands while 'rm' does:
$ rm
rm: missing operand
Try `rm --help' for more information.
$
Hi Eric.
On 02/16/2012 04:28 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
You can always use 'rm -rf dummy $file_list' without having to check for
whether $file_list is empty, but yes, that is the primary reasoning why
-f with no options behaves differently than any other case with no options.
FYI: I just opened
On 02/16/2012 11:38 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
FYI: I just opened a POSIX bug report, asking that this usage be
codified (since everyone that I tested already does it):
http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=542
By the way, that bug report was accepted in today's Austin Group
meeting, so it
Severity: wishlist
[CC:ing bug-automake, so that we won't forget about this issue]
Reference:
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=10819#40
POSIX will say in a future version that running rm -f with no argument is OK;
we might simplify several automake-generated cleaning rules
On 16/02/2012 18:58, Eric Blake wrote:
so that we could simplify a bunch of automake recipes); but a more extensive
probing is needed in this matter I guess. And if you are right (as I hope),
then this 'rm' feature could be documented in the Autoconf manual.
Yep, I think that's appropriate,
On 02/16/2012 09:30 PM, Jérémy Compostella wrote:
Pádraig, all,
I rebased my branch for this feature and make the syntax-check
success. I attached the new patch which I hope will satisfy you.
Feel free to comment it, I will take into account whatever you want.
Thanks for continuing with
13 matches
Mail list logo
