On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, LI Xin wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > Nicolas Rachinsky wrote:
> > > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > > > By the way, an additional confusion is that ".." and "../"
> > > > are handled differently. Specifying ".." always leads to
> > > > this message:
> > > >
> > > > rm: "." and ".." may not be removed
> > > >
> > > > and nothing is actually removed. It is confusing that
> > > > adding a slash leads to a different error message _and_
> > > > removal of the contents of the parent directory. Clearly
> > > > a POLA violation.
Clearly a bug, and well spotted, especially if as old as reported.
> > >
> > > Adding a slash often leads to different behaviour.
> >
> > Yes, I'm aware of that. I often make use of the feature
> > that "find /sys/" expands the symlink, while "find /sys"
> > does not. The same holds true for ls(1).
But fortunately not for rm(1):
The rm utility removes symbolic links, not the files referenced by the
links.
It is an error to attempt to remove the files /, . or ..
> > However, I would still argue that there is no sane reason
> > for "rm -rf ../" behaving differently from "rm -rf ..",
> > especially because it behaves differently in a destructive
> > way. That's why I call it a POLA violation.
>
> Also a POSIX violation IMHO :-)
Indeed; I can't imagine a situation where removing "." (let alone "..")
and so orphaning the pwd might be considered sane, never mind legal ..
but maybe I lack imagination :)
Cheers, Ian
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
