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, a
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, s
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 o
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 inform
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
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.te
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' f
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
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,
> tha
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
On Wed, 15 Feb 2012 15:06:05 -0700, Eric Blake 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 the
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 the said command as following :
> "rm - rf#*"
That's (probably) not a valid c
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 the said command as following :
"rm - rf#*"
if there is no file named #*# (* being the same as in the console, anything) in
the current directory, rm quits as expected b
13 matches
Mail list logo
