Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>
> "Matthew D. Fuller" wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 02:18:44AM +0200, a little birdie told me
> > that Maxim Sobolev remarked
> > >
> > > If your logic is right, then attempt to remove existent files from FAT using
> > > '*' should yield absolutely the same result (
"Matthew D. Fuller" wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 02:18:44AM +0200, a little birdie told me
> that Maxim Sobolev remarked
> >
> > If your logic is right, then attempt to remove existent files from FAT using
> > '*' should yield absolutely the same result (i.e. EINVAL). But in fact files
> > be
On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 02:18:44AM +0200, a little birdie told me
that Maxim Sobolev remarked
>
> If your logic is right, then attempt to remove existent files from FAT using
> '*' should yield absolutely the same result (i.e. EINVAL). But in fact files
> being removed from FAT w/o any problems (
Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>
> > Does anybody can explain why two absolutely identical attempts to remove
> > unexistent files on UFS and FAT32 yields different error codes ("No such
> > file or directory" and "Invalid argument" respectively)? This breaks "rm
>
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Does anybody can explain why two absolutely identical attempts to remove
> unexistent files on UFS and FAT32 yields different error codes ("No such
> file or directory" and "Invalid argument" respectively)? This breaks "rm
> -f" behaviour, because instea
Does anybody can explain why two absolutely identical attempts to remove
unexistent files on UFS and FAT32 yields different error codes ("No such
file or directory" and "Invalid argument" respectively)? This breaks "rm
-f" behaviour, because instead of expected "0", "rm -f" on FAT returns
error co
