On 12/23/2012 11:44:27 PM, David Seikel wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 23:25:46 -0600 Rob Landley <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 12/23/2012 08:45:07 PM, David Seikel wrote:
> > > > Like rm'ing something that does not exist, the end result is
the
> > > > same, except for the useless error.
>
> Using the host version on Ubuntu:
>
> $ rm doesnotexist
> rm: cannot remove `doesnotexist': No such file or directory
>
> You're thinking rm -f maybe?
>
> > > > The thing does not exist,
> > > > killall is no longer running. The error message is
> > > > superfluous,
> > as
> > > > the result you wanted is exactly what you get.
> > >
> > > I think the objection is that PIDs aren't monotonic (the PID
> > > namespace wraps), so if you kill things in increasing PID order
> > > this killall instance isn't guaranteed to be last so it won't
> > > necessarily kill everything it should.
> >
> > A valid objection for not killing yourself until you are done
> > killing everyone else. No excuse for an error message though,
once
> > killall is done, the requested task is accomplished, that's not an
> > error, that's success.
>
> Using the host version in ubuntu:
>
> $ killall doesnotexist
> doesnotexist: no process found
>
> You're thinking killall -q maybe? Which toybox implements?
>
> ./toybox killall -q killall
Yes, the "killall killall" case that this thread is all about.
"killall -q doesnotexist" works the exact same way.
I'm just ranting against the fact that getting the end result you
asked
for (the thing you are trying to delete does not exist, the thing you
are trying to kill is dead) is considered an error. The state of
things is precisely how you wanted them to be, what's the point of
declaring that as an error condition?
You requested an action that could not be performed. This is an error.
There is a flag to indicate that you do not consider it an error. This
is the existing design of _both_ tools.
I'm not seeing a problem here.
It's just a rant, nothing more. I know toybox will continue to stick
to
the the standards. I'm allowed to point out that I think the
standards
are stupid some times. I think it's particularly hilarious that the
only way to "successfully" remove something that does not exist is to
forcefully remove it.
I note that neither the "unlink" nor "rmdir" commands care about the
target's permission flags, so pausing to warn you about deleting them
is an artificial check in the rm command. All the -f flag does is not
tell you about anything that isn't an actual failure. So you could just
as easily say "-f" is "only report failures".
Kinda like beating a dead horse, by nuking it
from orbit, the horse isn't any more dead. lol
In this case, the horse is alive and well.
Rob
_______________________________________________
Toybox mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
