On 2/26/2019 12:10 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
>> rm -fr --one-filesystem foo/. or
>> cd foo && rm -fr --one-filesystem .
>
> rm: refusing to remove '.' or '..' directory: skipping '.'
>
> I agree with your complaint about "rm -rf ." not working. That is an
> annoying nanny-state restriction.
L A Walsh wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > Please provide an example. Something small. Something concrete.
> > Please include the version of rmdir.
>
> The original bug stems from having to use wild cards to delete
> all files in a directory instead of '.', as in being told to use:
>
> rm -fr
On 2/10/2019 1:52 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> L A Walsh wrote:
If you want a recursive option why not use 'rm -rf'?
>> rmdir already provides a recursive delete that can cross
>> file system boundaries
>
> Please provide an example. Something small. Something concrete.
> Please include the
On 2/10/2019 1:52 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> L A Walsh wrote:
If you want a recursive option why not use 'rm -rf'?
>> rmdir already provides a recursive delete that can cross
>> file system boundaries
>
> Please provide an example. Something small. Something concrete.
> Please include the
L A Walsh wrote:
> >> If you want a recursive option why not use 'rm -rf'?
>
> rmdir already provides a recursive delete that can cross
> file system boundaries
Please provide an example. Something small. Something concrete.
Please include the version of rmdir.
Something like:
mkdir testdir
On 1/18/2019 12:32 AM, Assaf Gordon wrote:
> retitle 12400 rmdir: add --one-file-system option
> severity 12400 wishlist
> tags 12400 wontfix
> stop
>
>> If you want a recursive option why not use 'rm -rf'?
>>
-
rmdir already provides a recursive delete that can cross
file system
retitle 12400 rmdir: add --one-file-system option
severity 12400 wishlist
tags 12400 wontfix
stop
(triaging old bugs)
Hello,
On 2012-09-09 11:22 p.m., Bob Proulx wrote:
Linda Walsh wrote:
If you are going to only provide 1 mode of functionality, it should
be to only rmdir dirs on the same
If you are going to only provide 1 mode of functionality, it should
be to only rmdir dirs on the same file system as the starting args.
Instead it follows network mount points doing who knows what. I
already know that it has in the past, on network'd file systems, gone
ahead and did a
Shouldn't that be 'users curse rmdir'?
All rmdir implementations behave that way;
GNU rmdir is no different.
It's not clear to me why 'rmdir /foo/a /bar/b' should by default
reject the attempt to remove '/bar/b' merely because it's on a
different file system from '/foo/a'.
Paul Eggert wrote:
Shouldn't that be 'users curse rmdir'?
All rmdir implementations behave that way;
GNU rmdir is no different.
It's not clear to me why 'rmdir /foo/a /bar/b' should by default
reject the attempt to remove '/bar/b' merely because it's on a
different file system from '/foo/a'.
On 09/09/2012 06:40 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
It's not clear to me why 'rmdir /foo/a /bar/b' should by default
reject the attempt to remove '/bar/b' merely because it's on a
different file system from '/foo/a'.
Then why have the option for 'rm'?
There is no such option for 'rm'. The
Paul Eggert wrote:
On 09/09/2012 06:40 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
It's not clear to me why 'rmdir /foo/a /bar/b' should by default
reject the attempt to remove '/bar/b' merely because it's on a
different file system from '/foo/a'.
Then why have the option for 'rm'?
There is no such option
Linda Walsh wrote:
or how do I remove all the files in /tmp, but not have it descend
into any file systems mounted in tmp?
I think it is really problematic to mount filesystems under /tmp.
That would be a really crazy situation. I wouldn't do it.
But...
find /tmp -xdev -mindepth 1 -delete
Linda Walsh wrote:
If you are going to only provide 1 mode of functionality, it should
be to only rmdir dirs on the same file system as the starting args.
But rmdir really only removes the directories you tell it. What is
the command you are complaining about? Are you using --parents or
On 09/09/2012 08:37 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
I'm using the wildcard option rm **
Then why is this bug report about rmdir?
I'm afraid that your bug report was incoherent,
as was your followup.
Paul Eggert wrote:
On 09/09/2012 08:37 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
I'm using the wildcard option rm **
Then why is this bug report about rmdir?
Because it was rmdir that chased off to network FS's when I
used wildcard syntax with it as I was told to do with rm.
This is why I didn't want to
16 matches
Mail list logo
