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 nothing is actually removed. It is confusing that > > > adding a slash leads to a different error message _and_ > > > removal of the contents of the parent directory. Clearly > > > a POLA violation. > > > > Adding a slash often leads to different behaviour. > > Yes, I'm aware of that. I often make use of the feature > that "find /sys/" expands the symlink, while "find /sys" > does not. The same holds true for ls(1). > > However, I would still argue that there is no sane reason > for "rm -rf ../" behaving differently from "rm -rf ..", > especially because it behaves differently in a destructive > way. That's why I call it a POLA violation.
Also a POSIX violation IMHO :-) Cheers, -- Xin LI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.delphij.net/ FreeBSD - The Power to Serve!
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature