It doesn't seem rmdir and mkdir are behaving "reciprocally"...
If I type
mkdir -p ./a/b/c # no error
rmdir -p ./a/b/c # get error msg, but a,b,c removed.
1) thinking either rmdir shouldn't generate an error or mkdir should
mkdir -p a/../b # no error
rmdir -p a/../b # error, but
tag 24730 notabug
thanks
On 10/18/2016 02:49 PM, L. A. Walsh wrote:
>
> It doesn't seem rmdir and mkdir are behaving "reciprocally"...
>
> If I type
>
> mkdir -p ./a/b/c # no error
. already exists, so mkdir silently does nothing,
./a needs to be created,
./a/b needs to be created,
./a/b/c n
On 10/18/2016 03:50 PM, Reuti wrote:
>>>
>>> 1) thinking either rmdir shouldn't generate an error or mkdir should
>>>
>>> mkdir -p a/../b # no error
>
>> a needs to be created,
>> a/.. already exists, so it silently does nothing,
>> a/../b needs to be created
>
>>> rmdir -p a/../b # er
Hello,
Before deciding on the wording, it's worth nothing that the errors and reasons
for the errors are different between mkdir and rmdir, and between the two cases.
On 10/18/2016 03:49 PM, L. A. Walsh wrote:
mkdir -p ./a/b/c # no error
rmdir -p ./a/b/c # get error msg, but a,b,c removed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 18.10.2016 um 22:33 schrieb Eric Blake:
> tag 24730 notabug
> thanks
>
> On 10/18/2016 02:49 PM, L. A. Walsh wrote:
>>
>> It doesn't seem rmdir and mkdir are behaving "reciprocally"...
>>
>> If I type
>>
>> mkdir -p ./a/b/c # no error
>
> .
Assaf Gordon wrote:
Hello,
Before deciding on the wording, it's worth nothing that the errors and
reasons for the errors are different between mkdir and rmdir, and
between the two cases.
On 10/18/2016 03:49 PM, L. A. Walsh wrote:
mkdir -p ./a/b/c # no error
rmdir -p ./a/b/c # get err
Hello,
> On Oct 18, 2016, at 17:35, Linda Walsh wrote:
>
> Assaf Gordon wrote:
>>> rmdir -p ./a/b/c # get error msg, but a,b,c removed.
> I see... so in ".a/b/c", a,b,c are removed, but the error
> comes in "."?
Yes.
> Ok, but is "-p" a posix switch in mkdir or rmdir?
Yes, it is