GNU bug report logs - #12339
Bug: rm -fr . doesn't dir depth first deletion yet it is documented to do so.

Previous Next

Full log

Message #155 received at 12339 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Linda Walsh <coreutils <at> tlinx.org>
To: Bernhard Voelker <mail <at> bernhard-voelker.de>
Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>, Jim Meyering <jim <at> meyering.net>,
	"12339 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <12339 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#12339: Bug: rm -fr . doesn't dir depth first deletion yet it
	is	documented to do so.
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2012 10:40:38 -0700

Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> 
> 
> On September 6, 2012 at 12:56 PM Linda Walsh <coreutils <at> tlinx.org> wrote:
> 
>> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> Thanks for the patch, but it would be pretty rotten for GNU rm to make
>>> it so "rm -rf ." deletes everything under ".", while all other vendor
>>> rm programs diagnose the POSIX-mandated error.  People would curse us
>>> for making GNU rm remove their precious files when they accidentally ran
>>> that command.
>> ---
>>
>> Just like people who ran "rm -fr * in /" and didn't get their POSIX
>> mandated behavior, would curse you?
>>
>> You are playing Mommy, to people and not allowing them to do what
>> they are asking the computer to do.
>>
>> [... and ~40 lines re. Jim, GNU, POSIX, the universe ...]
> 
> Dear Linda,
> 
> why don't you stick to the point?
----
	I wasn't the one who raised the point of people
cursing Gnu for removing their precious when they accidently or deliberately
tried to invoked rm in a way to generate a non-functional behavior.

	If we were going to talk about them cursing gnu, I thought
I would fully put it in perspective.

	That's what that exposé was about.

	Note -- that it wasn't personally directly, and included listed
facts for a stronger counterpoint to what, admittedly, was likely a lightly
given reason for not changing a default behavior.  It was addressing
that comment, alone.

	You want an on-point counter proposal:

	Might I suggest this as a rational counter proposal.


	If the user issues rm -r ., it issues a warning:

"Do you really wish to remove all files under '.'"?

	That won't break compatible behavior.  Only if the user chooses
the non-default 'force' option "do what I say and shut up", which is not
a default option", would it do the action I suggest.

	In any case, if POSIX_CORRECTLY is set, it will act as per POSIX requirements.

	It is TELLING, and important to understand Jim's statement
" Very few people ever set that envvar."  Most people don't want strict POSIX
compatbility -- for reasons exactly like this -- the POSIX isn't about 
usability, it's
about program portability.  So for interactive use, it wouldn't be something most
people would want to use.

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.