On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Bob Proulx wrote:
[rm and unexecutable directories]
>>the other way is to chmod every file before doing anything with
>>it.
>But the directory containing the file would need the chmod, not the
>file itself.
Sorry - I meant to say chmod every directory before doing anything
w
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Bob Proulx wrote:
% mkdir -p fred/jim
% chmod a-x fred/jim
% rm -rf fred
rm: cannot chdir from `fred' to `jim': Permission denied
>>>
>>>But by the action of your chmod you have specifically requested that
>>>you do not want those files removed!
>>
>>But by spec
Ed Avis wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
> >I looked into it a little, and am now even less enthusiastic. Doing
> >it right would mean changes that are way too invasive. They'd have
> >to handle failed chdir, opendir, readdir and retry after a chmod.
>
> Well - that's one way to do it, the other way i
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Jim Meyering wrote:
-F, --really-force
As --force but also change permissions if necessary.
>I looked into it a little, and am now even less enthusiastic. Doing
>it right would mean changes that are way too invasive. They'd have
>to handle failed chdi
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Bob Proulx wrote:
>>% mkdir -p fred/jim
>>% chmod a-x fred/jim
>>% rm -rf fred
>>rm: cannot chdir from `fred' to `jim': Permission denied
>
>But by the action of your chmod you have specifically requested that
>you do not want those files removed!
But by specifying the -f opti
Ed Avis wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> >>% mkdir -p fred/jim
> >>% chmod a-x fred/jim
> >>% rm -rf fred
> >>rm: cannot chdir from `fred' to `jim': Permission denied
> >
> >But by the action of your chmod you have specifically requested that
> >you do not want those files removed!
>
> But by speci
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Ed Avis wrote:
>> > In that case could I make a feature request for a new flag
>> >
>> > -F, --really-force
>> > As --force but also change permissions if necessary.
>>
>> It's feasible.
>> I'm not enthusiastic about thi
Ed Avis wrote:
> % mkdir -p fred/jim
> % chmod a-x fred/jim
> % rm -rf fred
> rm: cannot chdir from `fred' to `jim': Permission denied
But by the action of your chmod you have specifically requested that
you do not want those files removed! Therefore I for one will expect
that you will not be abl
On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>-F, --really-force
>>As --force but also change permissions if necessary.
>
>It's feasible.
>I'm not enthusiastic about this, but not strongly opposed either.
A few years ago there was a project called 'The Dammit Patch' to add a
--dammit
Ed Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In that case could I make a feature request for a new flag
>
> -F, --really-force
> As --force but also change permissions if necessary.
It's feasible.
I'm not enthusiastic about this, but not strongly opposed either.
Let's see if anyone else ha
On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>But since I own the directory I could change the permissions and then
>>remove it. Shouldn't rm do this if I gave the 'force' option?
>rm may not do that. POSIX prohibits it.
In that case could I make a feature request for a new flag
-F, --really-f
Ed Avis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> % mkdir -p fred/jim
> % chmod a-x fred/jim
> % rm -rf fred
> rm: cannot chdir from `fred' to `jim': Permission denied
>
> But since I own the directory I could change the permissions and then
> remove it. Shouldn't rm do this if I gave the 'force' option? I
>
% mkdir -p fred/jim
% chmod a-x fred/jim
% rm -rf fred
rm: cannot chdir from `fred' to `jim': Permission denied
But since I own the directory I could change the permissions and then
remove it. Shouldn't rm do this if I gave the 'force' option? I
thought that would take all measures necessa
13 matches
Mail list logo
