bug-coreutils
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#12339: Bug: rm -fr . doesn't dir depth first deletion yet it is docu


From: Linda Walsh
Subject: bug#12339: Bug: rm -fr . doesn't dir depth first deletion yet it is documented to do so.
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:30:50 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666



Eric Blake wrote:

You therefore may have a valid point that POSIX standardized something
that did not match existing practice at the time, and therefore, it
would be reasonable to propose a POSIX defect that requires early
failure on "..", but changes the behavior on "." and "/" to only permit,
but not require, early failure.  However, I just checked, and the
prohibition for an early exit on "." has been around since at least
POSIX 2001, so you are now coming into the game at least 11 years late.
----
        Those changes only started hitting the field a few years ago.

        Bash just started working to adopted the 2003 standard with
it's 4.0 version -- before that it was 1999 -- I didn't even know
there was a 2001....

        Except that trying to get them to change things now, I'd encounter
the same arguments I get here -- that users expect to be able have "-f"
not really mean force -- and to report errors on ".".

        Not that I believe that, -- I just think most users aren't
aware or don't care, but that would be the reasoning.   I get it here,
why would I expect someone who's job is to come up with lame rules that
defy standard practice (last I looked they were proposing to ban "space"
(as well as 0x01-0x1f) in file names).   Attempting to deal with people
who want to turn POSIX into a restriction document -- not a standard
reflecting current implementations, is well beyond my social abilities.

        I can't even get engineers -- when faced with clear evidence
of programs that put out inconsistent output to fix them.  They know it's
bad output -- and even warn that they are about to do the wrong thing
in warnings.   Somehow this is considered preferable to doing something
useful.

        So expecting a group that is heavily into bureaucracy to listen to
reason just doesn't seem like a reasonable expectation.

        I did go to their website though and see what they were discussing,
and when I saw that sentiment was going in favor of limiting allowed characters
in filenames, I was to ill to stay.








reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]