> On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Mark Andrews wrote:
> (I wrote:)
> > > 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
On Thu, 27 Sep 2007, Mark Andrews wrote:
(I wrote:)
> > 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 differen
> 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:
> >
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, LI Xin wrote:
I think this is a bug, here is a fix obtained from NetBSD.
This bug, if any, cannot be fixed in rm.
The reasoning (from NetBSD's rm.c,v 1.16):
Bugs can easily be added to rm.
Strip trailing slashes of operands in checkdot().
POSIX.2 requires that if ".
On 9/26/07, Dan Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the last episode (Sep 26), Oliver Fromme said:
> > Bob Johnson wrote:
> > > Maybe. But I expect that the behavior for "rm -rf .." is there so
> > > that things don't get REALLY astonishing when you do "rm -rf *".
> >
> > The expansion of "*"
Alex Zbyslaw wrote:
> .??* is a standard workaround that works most of the time. Won't match
> .a .b etc but such antisocial files are the exception, one might hope.
What? I name all my files that way!
Granted, that only allows under 30 files per directory, but so what?
--
Tuomo
... Alright!
Dan Nelson wrote:
> Oliver Fromme said:
> > The expansion of "*" does not include "." or "..".
>
> Under /bin/sh, ".*" does match "." and "..", so be careful :)
For that reason I got used to type ".??*" instead of ".*"
since I started with UNIX almost 20 years ago. ;-)
Apart from that, zsh
Dan Nelson wrote:
In the last episode (Sep 26), Oliver Fromme said:
Bob Johnson wrote:
> Maybe. But I expect that the behavior for "rm -rf .." is there so
> that things don't get REALLY astonishing when you do "rm -rf *".
The expansion of "*" does not include "." or "..".
Under /bin
In the last episode (Sep 26), Oliver Fromme said:
> Bob Johnson 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
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:
> > > >
> > > >
Bob Johnson 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 th
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:55 +0100, jan.grant wrote:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Oliver Fromme wrote:
Note that the command "rm -rf ../" was entered twice.
The first time I got an error message (and exit code 1),
the second time it apparently succeeded.
Check the man page for rm:
-f Attemp
On 9/25/07, Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
> > Oliver Fromme wrote:
> >
> > > $ cd /tmp
> > > $ mkdir -p foo/var
> > > $ cd foo/bar
> > > $ rm -rf ../
> > > rm: ../: Invalid argument
> > > $ rm -rf ../
> > > $
> > >
[...]
> > Quick testing here:
> >
Hello!
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 11:54:14PM +0200, Oliver Brandmueller wrote:
> In sh:
>
> $ which rm
> /bin/rm
> $ cd /tmp
> $ mkdir -p foo/bar
> $ cd foo/bar
> $ rm -rf ../
> rm: ../: Invalid argument
$ pwd
/tmp
$ ktrace -i /bin/sh
$ which rm
/bin/rm
$ mkdir -p foo/bar
$ cd foo/bar
$ rm -rf ../
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 11:25:34AM -0400, Maxim Khitrov wrote:
> On 9/25/07, Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > To add further confusion, another "rm -rf ../" does
> > not print an error message and seemingly succeeds,
> > even though ".." does not exist anymore in the current
> > di
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 not
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 confus
* Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-25 19:43 +0200]:
> 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
I think this is a bug, here is a fix obtained from NetBSD.
The reasoning (from NetBSD's rm.c,v 1.16):
Strip trailing slashes of operands in checkdot().
POSIX.2 requires that if "." or ".." are specified as the basename
portion of an operand, a diagnostic message be written to standard
error, etc
Torfinn Ingolfsen wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
>
> > $ cd /tmp
> > $ mkdir -p foo/var
> > $ cd foo/bar
> > $ rm -rf ../
> > rm: ../: Invalid argument
> > $ rm -rf ../
> > $
> >
> > Note that the command "rm -rf ../" was entered twice.
> > The first time I got an error message (and e
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Note that the command "rm -rf ../" was entered twice.
> The first time I got an error message (and exit code 1),
> the second time it apparently succeeded.
Check the man page for rm:
-f Attempt to remove the files without prompting for conf
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:12:50 +0200 (CEST)
Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $ cd /tmp
> $ mkdir -p foo/var
> $ cd foo/bar
> $ rm -rf ../
> rm: ../: Invalid argument
> $ rm -rf ../
> $
>
> Note that the command "rm -rf ../" was entered twice.
> The first time I got an error message (and
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 05:12:50PM +0200, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Today I noticed the following behaviour on a 6-stable
> machine:
>
> $ cd /tmp
> $ mkdir -p foo/var
> $ cd foo/bar
Looks like you have mistyped 'mkdir' argument :)
> $ rm -rf ../
> rm: ../: Invalid argument
Please type
On 9/25/07, Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Today I noticed the following behaviour on a 6-stable
> machine:
>
> $ cd /tmp
> $ mkdir -p foo/var
> $ cd foo/bar
> $ rm -rf ../
> rm: ../: Invalid argument
> $ rm -rf ../
> $
>
> Note that the command "rm -rf ../" was entered twice.
>
24 matches
Mail list logo
