Quoting Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (from Wed, 16 May 2007
10:18:40 +0200):
Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What about another idea: removing the chflags all together and let the
removal fail (with a message that the file may be protected with schg
and it should be removed with chglags). This way only a message
appears when the rm fails (saying no to the removal question of rm is
not a failure/exit!=0).
OK with me.
BTW, testing for the schg flag is not straightforward, but doable:
flags=$(stat -f '%f' ./$${file})
if [ $((flags & 131072)) -eq 131072 ] ; then
# schg is set
fi
This does not cover the case when the user doesn't want to remove the
file. So I think removing the chflags is better than testing for the
flag.
Bye,
Alexander.
--
Anyone can hold the helm when the sea is calm.
-- Publilius Syrus
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
_______________________________________________
cvs-all@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
