[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mv trailing slash warning
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: mv trailing slash warning |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:05:31 +0000 |
> > On a related note, why don't rm and rmdir have a --strip-trailing-slashes
> > option?
>
> Because as far as I know, there is no need.
> Do you know of a system where `rmdir symlink/'
> removes only the referent of the symlink?
By a strict reading of
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/rm.html,
'rm -R symlink/' should empty the referrant, then fail!
step 0: the command line does not end in .
step 1: symlink/ exists
step 2: 'symlink/' is of type directory ('symlink', on the other hand,
is of type symlink); this is the recursion, ending with the
referrant being emptied, and symlink and symlink/ still existing
step 3: 'symlink/' is a directory
step 4: call rmdir("symlink/"), which should fail with EINVAL
But no implementation of rm(1) that I am aware of does this;
they all unlink symlink and call it quits, leaving the referrant
(and its contents) alone. We really do need to clean this up
with the austin group; surely they intended to document
historical behavior.
--
Eric Blake
- Re: mv trailing slash warning, (continued)
Re: mv trailing slash warning, Eric Blake, 2005/09/28
Re: mv trailing slash warning, Eric Blake, 2005/09/28
Re: mv trailing slash warning, Eric Blake, 2005/09/28
Re: mv trailing slash warning,
Eric Blake <=