close 12339
stop
(triaging old bugs)
Hello,
This long and winding thread covers several topics
relating to rm(1), historical unix and POSIX compatibility
(and a bugfix or two in the mix).
An enlightening read for those interested...
( https://bugs.gnu.org/12339 )
But the bottom line is:
Eric Blake wrote:
They are also well-defined terms in the POSIX standard.
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap03.html#tag_03_40
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/basename.html
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/dirname.htm
Eric Blake wrote:
On 09/12/2012 04:51 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
I hope to prove the subject convincingly in the following sections, If
you can, reading this in the original HTML might be useful, as I don't
know it will end up when converted to text.
the mail engines sripped it to
plain text bef
On 09/12/2012 06:28 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Before, "rm -r bbb/" was not valid syntax --
>
> Sorry, but 'rm -r bbb/' has ALWAYS been valid syntax in POSIX, and has
> always meant 'remove the directory found by resolving 'bbb', even if
> 'bbb' is a symlink to a directory. The fact that the Linux
On 09/12/2012 04:51 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> I hope to prove the subject convincingly in the following sections, If
> you can, reading this in the original HTML might be useful, as I don't
> know it will end up when converted to text.
HTML mail is forbidden on this list; the mail engine stripped i
I hope to prove the subject convincingly in the following sections, If
you can, reading this in the original HTML might be useful, as I don't
know it will end up when converted to text. I tried to format it for
readability .. so if the text format isn't...(still tried to limit
margins and use m
