GNU bug report logs - #15926
RFE: unlink command already uses 'unlink' call; make 'rm' use 'remove' call

Previous Next

Full log

Message #65 received at 15926 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com>
To: Bernhard Voelker <mail <at> bernhard-voelker.de>
Cc: 15926 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>
Subject: Re: bug#15926: RFE: unlink command already uses 'unlink' call; make
 'rm' use 'remove' call
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 08:55:52 +0000

On 11/21/2013 07:12 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> On 11/21/2013 03:07 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 11/20/2013 05:03 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
>>> What about the following?
>>>
>>>   $ src/rm -r src/.
>>>   src/rm: refusing to remove '.' or '..' directory: skipping 'src/.'
>>
>> That helps.
> 
> Thanks, I'll push it unless someone comes up with a better wording.
> 
>>  But I'm also starting to think we should add a new long
>> option --no-preserve-dot, similar to how --no-preserve-root can be used
>> to work around the restriction.  Then people that want to can create an
>> alias or other wrapper around rm to get the non-nanny behavior, while
>> the default behavior still complies with POSIX.
> 
> Admittedly, compared to the academic question behind "--no-preserve-root"
> (which is like "what happens to me when the globe under my feet disappears?"),
> there may be more real-world reasons to remove ".".
> 
> However, as it's possible to pass the canonicalized file name of "."
> or ".." to rm(1), I'm not yet convinced that it warrants adding a
> new --no-preserve-dot-or-dotdot (and for symmetry reasons a new
> --preserve-dot-or-dotdot) option.

I would say this does not need an option for the reason you describe.

thanks,
Pádraig.

Previous Next

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