On 1/13/09, Mark J. Reed <markjr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM, greenup wrote: > > oh, I forgot to mention: right after doing the rm, the return code is > > success, even though it failed to actually remove the file. > rm with -f is silent about certain types of errors, usually of the > "file doesn't exist" variety. So that sounds like rm thinks that > > Is rm without -f able to remove goo/foo (after you confirm at the > prompt)? If not, does it generate an error indication? Nope. no error. Looking farther for an error, I tried to see if I could get more verbose, and found "-v". It seemed to just further indicate that rm thought it had done its job.
d...@w2 ~ $ rm -v goo/foo rm: remove write-protected regular empty file `goo/foo'? y removed `goo/foo' d...@w2 ~ $ echo $? 0 d...@w2 ~ $ ls -la goo total 0 drwxr-xr-x+ 2 dz mkgroup-l-d 0 Jan 13 08:10 . drwxrwx---+ 23 Administrators SYSTEM 0 Jan 13 10:01 .. -r-------- 1 dz mkgroup-l-d 0 Jan 13 08:18 foo obviously, LOTS AND LOTS of scripts and makefiles depend on rm -f. This is bad. (for me, at least) -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
