bug#24730: rmdir/mkdir error(s) and/or not working "reciprocally" w/each other

Hello, > On Oct 18, 2016, at 17:35, Linda Walsh 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 "."? Yes. > Ok, but is "-p" a posix switch in mkdir

bug#24730: rmdir/mkdir error(s) and/or not working "reciprocally" w/each other

Assaf Gordon wrote: Hello, Before deciding on the wording, it's worth nothing that the errors and reasons for the errors are different between mkdir and rmdir, and between the two cases. On 10/18/2016 03:49 PM, L. A. Walsh wrote: mkdir -p ./a/b/c # no error rmdir -p ./a/b/c # get

bug#24730: rmdir/mkdir error(s) and/or not working "reciprocally" w/each other

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 18.10.2016 um 22:33 schrieb Eric Blake: > tag 24730 notabug > thanks > > On 10/18/2016 02:49 PM, L. A. Walsh wrote: >> >> It doesn't seem rmdir and mkdir are behaving "reciprocally"... >> >> If I type >> >> mkdir -p ./a/b/c # no error > >

bug#24730: rmdir/mkdir error(s) and/or not working "reciprocally" w/each other

Hello, Before deciding on the wording, it's worth nothing that the errors and reasons for the errors are different between mkdir and rmdir, and between the two cases. On 10/18/2016 03:49 PM, L. A. Walsh wrote: mkdir -p ./a/b/c # no error rmdir -p ./a/b/c # get error msg, but a,b,c

bug#24730: rmdir/mkdir error(s) and/or not working "reciprocally" w/each other

On 10/18/2016 03:50 PM, Reuti wrote: >>> >>> 1) thinking either rmdir shouldn't generate an error or mkdir should >>> >>> mkdir -p a/../b # no error > >> a needs to be created, >> a/.. already exists, so it silently does nothing, >> a/../b needs to be created > >>> rmdir -p a/../b #

bug#24730: rmdir/mkdir error(s) and/or not working "reciprocally" w/each other

tag 24730 notabug thanks On 10/18/2016 02:49 PM, L. A. Walsh wrote: > > It doesn't seem rmdir and mkdir are behaving "reciprocally"... > > If I type > > mkdir -p ./a/b/c # no error . already exists, so mkdir silently does nothing, ./a needs to be created, ./a/b needs to be created, ./a/b/c

bug#24731: "who"'s behavior doesn't follow manpage description

L. A. Walsh wrote: coreutils-8.23 x64 who manpage says: If FILE is not specified, use /var/run/utmp. /var/log/wtmp as FILE is common. If ARG1 ARG2 given, -m presumed: 'am i' or 'mom likes' are usual. Behavior is: access("/var/run/utmpx", F_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file

bug#24730: rmdir/mkdir error(s) and/or not working "reciprocally" w/each other

It doesn't seem rmdir and mkdir are behaving "reciprocally"... If I type mkdir -p ./a/b/c # no error rmdir -p ./a/b/c # get error msg, but a,b,c removed. 1) thinking either rmdir shouldn't generate an error or mkdir should mkdir -p a/../b # no error rmdir -p a/../b # error, but