Jim Meyering wrote: > Linda Walsh wrote: > ... > > GNU needs to be clear their priorities -- maintaining software > > freedom, or bowing down to corporate powers... POSIX isn't > > While POSIX is in general a very good baseline, no one here conforms > blindly. If POSIX is wrong, we'll lobby to change it, or, when > that fails, maybe relegate the undesirable required behavior to when > POSIXLY_CORRECT is set, or even simply ignore it. In fact, over the > years, I have deliberately made a few GNU tools contravene some aspects > of POSIX-specified behavior that I felt were counterproductive. > > We try to make the tools as useful as possible, sometimes adding features > when we deem them worthwhile. However, we are very much against changing > the *default* behavior (behavior that has been that way for over 20 > years and that is compatible with all other vendor-supplied rm programs) > without a very good reason.
Because I originally voted that this felt like a bug I wanted to state that after determining that this has already been legacy system historical practice for a very long time that I wouldn't change it now. Portability of applications is more important. This isn't a feature that could be working in a script for someone. It isn't something that was recently removed that would cause a script to break. A script will run now with the same behavior across multiple different types of systems. I think we should leave things unchanged. Bob
