On 2007-03-05 21:59:37 +0100, Jim Meyering wrote: > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But IMHO, rm should remember that is has already done an unlink and > > there shouldn't be a diagnostic in this case. > > Unfortunately it's not that easy. > If I were to make such a change, it is quite likely > that it would cause a real unlink failure not to be > reported, and *that* would be serious.
IMHO, only the fact that unlink on the *arguments* could not be performed correctly should be reported. But in a recursive rm, I don't see any reason to report internal failure. Moreover I don't see the point of doing two unlink's, as long as the first unlink succeeded. > Here, you have a work-around (use -f) that works just fine. This is not an acceptable solution: using -f is dangerous and I don't necessarily want protected files to be removed. -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon) _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
