From unknown Sat Jun 21 03:09:48 2025 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.509 (Entity 5.509) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 From: bug#16291 <16291@debbugs.gnu.org> To: bug#16291 <16291@debbugs.gnu.org> Subject: Status: Use of /bin/rm Reply-To: bug#16291 <16291@debbugs.gnu.org> Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2025 10:09:48 +0000 retitle 16291 Use of /bin/rm reassign 16291 automake submitter 16291 ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) severity 16291 normal tag 16291 notabug thanks From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Dec 29 16:50:24 2013 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Dec 2013 21:50:24 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50790 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VxOFb-0000Da-OD for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:50:24 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:59278) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VxOFZ-0000DP-HV for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:50:22 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VxOFP-0004Fv-Pf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:50:21 -0500 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on eggs.gnu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=disabled version=3.3.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::11]:59798) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VxOFP-0004Fr-Md for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:50:11 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60962) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VxOFI-0007q8-Cf for bug-automake@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:50:11 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VxOF9-0003xi-8j for bug-automake@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:50:04 -0500 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:27847) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VxOF9-0003xV-1s for bug-automake@gnu.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 16:49:55 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,570,1384297200"; d="scan'208";a="50832298" Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr (HELO pluto) ([80.67.176.83]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 29 Dec 2013 22:49:53 +0100 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: bug-automake@gnu.org Subject: Use of /bin/rm X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 9 =?utf-8?Q?Niv=C3=B4se?= an 222 de la =?utf-8?Q?R?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 22:49:53 +0100 Message-ID: <87a9fjfhtq.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130007 (Ma Gnus v0.7) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::11 X-Spam-Score: -5.4 (-----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: submit X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -5.4 (-----) Hello! While upgrading the GNU system to Automake 1.14.1, I noticed that a few tests emit warnings like this: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- SKIP: t/spy-rm.tap 1 # SKIP /bin/rm not found PASS: t/spy-rm.tap 2 - rm -f SKIP: t/spy-rm.tap 3 # SKIP /bin/rm not found PASS: t/spy-rm.tap 4 - rm -rf SKIP: t/spy-rm.tap 5 # SKIP /bin/rm not found PASS: t/spy-rm.tap 6 - rm -fr --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- There=E2=80=99s no /bin/rm in Guix build environments, hence the message (in fact, there=E2=80=99s no /bin at all.) However, in general, I think packages should not rely on hardcoded file names, and instead use AC_PATH_PROG or similar mechanisms to get the right file name. Would it be possible to change these tests to use =E2=80=98rm=E2=80=99 inst= ead of /bin/rm? What do you think? Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Dec 29 17:17:35 2013 Received: (at 16291) by debbugs.gnu.org; 29 Dec 2013 22:17:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:50845 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VxOfv-000123-D5 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 17:17:35 -0500 Received: from mail-ee0-f51.google.com ([74.125.83.51]:38923) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VxOfs-00011n-QE; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 17:17:33 -0500 Received: by mail-ee0-f51.google.com with SMTP id b15so4879813eek.10 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 14:17:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=x6Zey9uqKoP5vnGj3BhoUv69F+t6EyU+tYkUwM9F4YI=; b=nMVFuPvytYrDp6EI2eQpkYgXjkZyEgY2gaQW6RutuItnmrsN2Gb9XF32qJh4ixsB9s gQbfwPhNoNe3Z7ghEak2fyciZrBJ0o5c/MCR0/45uHvY3WPjFNcUNuInPfWfu1SLbEA0 /U16uuvk3+vCZsL7QivEofjxeSm+jWDCRgt14P3ZbVceOQQD/lswe9IxQnYvkHNOJfGP YYo9oBwWhymUrDYLbQWygOyWYV88Jc2ie10ghZh17qYFBAVGN4JFucSxMoIid+frzx43 bhzyUyjhAMSaTfy4myzqpDlrmpN1KUxwgJKMqCLgYQIwCUke6IH7yLQIg7rnZ9UefviD Evmg== X-Received: by 10.15.54.72 with SMTP id s48mr51766920eew.3.1388355451979; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 14:17:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.101] (host48-95-dynamic.10-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.10.95.48]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e3sm103158862eeg.11.2013.12.29.14.17.29 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 29 Dec 2013 14:17:30 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52C09F70.5010405@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 23:17:20 +0100 From: Stefano Lattarini MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?THVkb3ZpYyBDb3VydMOocw==?= Subject: Re: bug#16291: Use of /bin/rm References: <87a9fjfhtq.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <87a9fjfhtq.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 16291 Cc: 16291@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) tags 16291 notabug close 16291 stop On 12/29/2013 10:49 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Hello! > > While upgrading the GNU system to Automake 1.14.1, I noticed that a few > tests emit warnings like this: > SKIPs are not warning, just informative messages explaining why some tests couldn't be run. > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > SKIP: t/spy-rm.tap 1 # SKIP /bin/rm not found > PASS: t/spy-rm.tap 2 - rm -f > SKIP: t/spy-rm.tap 3 # SKIP /bin/rm not found > PASS: t/spy-rm.tap 4 - rm -rf > SKIP: t/spy-rm.tap 5 # SKIP /bin/rm not found > PASS: t/spy-rm.tap 6 - rm -fr > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > There’s no /bin/rm in Guix build environments, hence the message (in > fact, there’s no /bin at all.) > This is not a problem, since our test is smart enough to skip the checks that would require the non-existent /bin/rm program. > However, in general, I think packages should not rely on hardcoded file > names, and instead use AC_PATH_PROG or similar mechanisms to get the > right file name. > Not in this case. The test is a "spy" check that tries to determine whether either (1) the first 'rm' in PATH or (2) '/bin/rm' *if present* is deficient, in that it errors out when the -f option is specified and no non-option argument is passed. If /bin/rm does not exist, it can't be deficient, so the test correctly passes (I assume that happened in your setup, right? If not, that would be a bug, and you'd be justified to reopen this report). > Would it be possible to change these tests to use ‘rm’ instead of /bin/rm? > What do you think? > That would be a bad idea, because we would miss warning from systems where /bin/rm is deficient but the user has installed a better rm (maybe from GNU coreutils) earlier in PATH. If all you are seeing are few SKIP messages and no failure, I don't think there is any problem to fix; everything is working as intended. Thanks, Stefano From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Dec 30 10:44:47 2013 Received: (at 16291) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Dec 2013 15:44:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52708 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vxf1K-0003zz-9t for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:44:46 -0500 Received: from mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.104]:17622) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vxf1G-0003zm-1Y for 16291@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 10:44:42 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,574,1384297200"; d="scan'208";a="42910645" Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr (HELO pluto) ([80.67.176.83]) by mail3-relais-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 30 Dec 2013 16:44:26 +0100 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Stefano Lattarini Subject: Re: bug#16291: Use of /bin/rm References: <87a9fjfhtq.fsf@gnu.org> <52C09F70.5010405@gmail.com> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 10 =?utf-8?Q?Niv=C3=B4se?= an 222 de la =?utf-8?Q?R?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 16:44:26 +0100 In-Reply-To: <52C09F70.5010405@gmail.com> (Stefano Lattarini's message of "Sun, 29 Dec 2013 23:17:20 +0100") Message-ID: <87vby6e42t.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130007 (Ma Gnus v0.7) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 16291 Cc: 16291@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) Stefano Lattarini skribis: > On 12/29/2013 10:49 PM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: [...] >> However, in general, I think packages should not rely on hardcoded file >> names, and instead use AC_PATH_PROG or similar mechanisms to get the >> right file name. >> > Not in this case. The test is a "spy" check that tries to determine > whether either > (1) the first 'rm' in PATH or > (2) '/bin/rm' *if present* > is deficient, in that it errors out when the -f option is specified and > no non-option argument is passed. If /bin/rm does not exist, it can't > be deficient, so the test correctly passes (I assume that happened in > your setup, right? Yes. >> Would it be possible to change these tests to use =E2=80=98rm=E2=80=99 i= nstead of /bin/rm? >> What do you think? >> > That would be a bad idea, because we would miss warning from systems > where /bin/rm is deficient but the user has installed a better rm > (maybe from GNU coreutils) earlier in PATH. > > If all you are seeing are few SKIP messages and no failure, I don't > think there is any problem to fix; everything is working as intended. Yes, of course. However, I=E2=80=99m still wondering: do Automake-generated makefiles and Autoconf macros explicitly attempt to use /bin/rm in normal use? Why does /bin/rm matter in the first place? Thanks for your quick feedback, Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Dec 30 11:41:05 2013 Received: (at 16291) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Dec 2013 16:41:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:52832 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vxfto-0008HU-Ks for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 11:41:05 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f176.google.com ([209.85.215.176]:33223) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vxftj-0008H0-7M for 16291@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 11:40:59 -0500 Received: by mail-ea0-f176.google.com with SMTP id h14so5150916eaj.7 for <16291@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 08:40:58 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=M6FPSgLDrjxnF3/s9jTHXvtFHuOt24CTrx2Rvk6RKRg=; b=yl9ayZ6O8aUEdBaO8HYry4aK8aqc8uEH+6qeHV/SG6RMoS67kyUoQc0+aYM1P/DlwO S68M/EQ1UlA5knI6jrK1cmShcSWxYGQEz82fUsWtbv1OMMime8GP4xaiaAB+qND/XO1G fkyyKltXehMsA/KUCTECpyHIsMZ8kOwA7J5d+a0wqy2xr+7MiqdTcaZ4fqYWiS6SaoT9 ysAc9eklbha+TpDd+dztidK4b2w3V0VDO8TyWrCcCHWmuyTpGUEidyO9f09f05tXBWPQ nKy9FOMjlKIMnamCZeS36DKPbM3DQ1HqoPSigohxSewRUyzwKh3vZ5u/77BTRJNdYoRU FFeA== X-Received: by 10.15.111.201 with SMTP id cj49mr2527652eeb.56.1388421658345; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 08:40:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.101] (host48-95-dynamic.10-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.10.95.48]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id 44sm110213502eek.5.2013.12.30.08.40.56 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Dec 2013 08:40:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52C1A211.5040705@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 17:40:49 +0100 From: Stefano Lattarini MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?THVkb3ZpYyBDb3VydMOocw==?= Subject: Re: bug#16291: Use of /bin/rm References: <87a9fjfhtq.fsf@gnu.org> <52C09F70.5010405@gmail.com> <87vby6e42t.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <87vby6e42t.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 16291 Cc: 16291@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On 12/30/2013 04:44 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Stefano Lattarini skribis: > >> On 12/29/2013 10:49 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > [...] > >>> However, in general, I think packages should not rely on hardcoded file >>> names, and instead use AC_PATH_PROG or similar mechanisms to get the >>> right file name. >>> >> Not in this case. The test is a "spy" check that tries to determine >> whether either >> (1) the first 'rm' in PATH or >> (2) '/bin/rm' *if present* >> is deficient, in that it errors out when the -f option is specified and >> no non-option argument is passed. If /bin/rm does not exist, it can't >> be deficient, so the test correctly passes (I assume that happened in >> your setup, right? > > Yes. > >>> Would it be possible to change these tests to use ‘rm’ instead of /bin/rm? >>> What do you think? >>> >> That would be a bad idea, because we would miss warning from systems >> where /bin/rm is deficient but the user has installed a better rm >> (maybe from GNU coreutils) earlier in PATH. >> >> If all you are seeing are few SKIP messages and no failure, I don't >> think there is any problem to fix; everything is working as intended. > > Yes, of course. > > However, I’m still wondering: do Automake-generated makefiles and > Autoconf macros explicitly attempt to use /bin/rm in normal use? > Re Automake: not that I'm aware of. Have you any proof this is not the case? Re Autoconf: that should be asked on the autoconf list. > Why does /bin/rm matter in the first place? > > Thanks for your quick feedback, > Ludo’. > Regards, Stefano From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Dec 30 15:55:32 2013 Received: (at 16291) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Dec 2013 20:55:32 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53207 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vxjs3-0000R1-IF for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:55:32 -0500 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:44457) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1Vxjry-0000Qa-Ny for 16291@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 15:55:28 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,576,1384297200"; d="scan'208";a="51047740" Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr (HELO pluto) ([80.67.176.83]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 30 Dec 2013 21:55:19 +0100 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Stefano Lattarini Subject: Re: bug#16291: Use of /bin/rm References: <87a9fjfhtq.fsf@gnu.org> <52C09F70.5010405@gmail.com> <87vby6e42t.fsf@gnu.org> <52C1A211.5040705@gmail.com> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 10 =?utf-8?Q?Niv=C3=B4se?= an 222 de la =?utf-8?Q?R?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 21:55:19 +0100 In-Reply-To: <52C1A211.5040705@gmail.com> (Stefano Lattarini's message of "Mon, 30 Dec 2013 17:40:49 +0100") Message-ID: <87wqimcb48.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130007 (Ma Gnus v0.7) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 16291 Cc: 16291@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) Stefano Lattarini skribis: > On 12/30/2013 04:44 PM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> Stefano Lattarini skribis: >>=20 >>> On 12/29/2013 10:49 PM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >>=20 >> [...] >>=20 >>>> However, in general, I think packages should not rely on hardcoded file >>>> names, and instead use AC_PATH_PROG or similar mechanisms to get the >>>> right file name. >>>> >>> Not in this case. The test is a "spy" check that tries to determine >>> whether either >>> (1) the first 'rm' in PATH or >>> (2) '/bin/rm' *if present* >>> is deficient, in that it errors out when the -f option is specified and >>> no non-option argument is passed. If /bin/rm does not exist, it can't >>> be deficient, so the test correctly passes (I assume that happened in >>> your setup, right? >>=20 >> Yes. >>=20 >>>> Would it be possible to change these tests to use =E2=80=98rm=E2=80=99= instead of /bin/rm? >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>> That would be a bad idea, because we would miss warning from systems >>> where /bin/rm is deficient but the user has installed a better rm >>> (maybe from GNU coreutils) earlier in PATH. >>> >>> If all you are seeing are few SKIP messages and no failure, I don't >>> think there is any problem to fix; everything is working as intended. >>=20 >> Yes, of course. >>=20 >> However, I=E2=80=99m still wondering: do Automake-generated makefiles and >> Autoconf macros explicitly attempt to use /bin/rm in normal use? >> > Re Automake: not that I'm aware of. Have you any proof this is > not the case? No; I=E2=80=99m asking because the tests specifically refer to /bin/rm. What=E2=80=99s the reason? Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Dec 30 17:02:01 2013 Received: (at 16291) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Dec 2013 22:02:01 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53302 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VxkuO-0002Rx-TG for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 17:02:01 -0500 Received: from mail-ee0-f43.google.com ([74.125.83.43]:58403) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VxkuH-0002Rg-PH for 16291@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 17:01:58 -0500 Received: by mail-ee0-f43.google.com with SMTP id c13so5219660eek.2 for <16291@debbugs.gnu.org>; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 14:01:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lg7V37nCqwmrbWmH0fm2Dcl44tKLDeRL0+lPeTaHRbc=; b=gs8qOltxsNtTcUhgFdJyPomszv1wR9vt3qofLz6YItN7cwiDO5sNTqPYD48C4BNuZe 6AnociuWYomohyru3idw4gy8VEfLM+PosB900sX1nbgT/1KCsAE4YRBs6sWvZ8iHYJM+ nX62Wi+P3Lp8iEbB671HDbjrV5WNk+vOFENWgjTNp/14cfBRIrdnMxUBHvELkg6/7yKq E8s9qA+pSXMe8nSQ9/JHVEK9ikukN/0U1hwUK0KWkcwzEr7yfUtUy1NDwIbyF/1U8cAy V5JtteNZaSsrYgU2CT8Bu1XK0VNCBQ0cj6infmj2d76+MjgCnrAOSFWXyUDKtHfvUC1F r9yQ== X-Received: by 10.15.63.134 with SMTP id m6mr3698475eex.74.1388440912568; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 14:01:52 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.0.101] (host48-95-dynamic.10-79-r.retail.telecomitalia.it. [79.10.95.48]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g7sm112444167eet.12.2013.12.30.14.01.51 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 30 Dec 2013 14:01:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <52C1ED47.7080009@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 23:01:43 +0100 From: Stefano Lattarini MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?THVkb3ZpYyBDb3VydMOocw==?= Subject: Re: bug#16291: Use of /bin/rm References: <87a9fjfhtq.fsf@gnu.org> <52C09F70.5010405@gmail.com> <87vby6e42t.fsf@gnu.org> <52C1A211.5040705@gmail.com> <87wqimcb48.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <87wqimcb48.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 16291 Cc: 16291@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) On 12/30/2013 09:55 PM, Ludovic Courtès wrote: > > [MEGA-SNIP] > > No; I’m asking because the tests specifically refer to /bin/rm. > What’s the reason? > Copying from my first reply: Ludovic Courtès wrote: > Would it be possible to change these tests to use ‘rm’ > instead of /bin/rm? What do you think? > That would be a bad idea, because we would miss warning from systems where /bin/rm is deficient but the user has installed a better rm (maybe from GNU coreutils) earlier in PATH. To reiterate, we want to find out about deficiencies in the "base system" even if the user who is running the Automake testsuite has mitigated them by installing better tools earlier in his PATH. Regards, Stefano From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Mon Dec 30 17:33:07 2013 Received: (at 16291) by debbugs.gnu.org; 30 Dec 2013 22:33:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53329 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VxlOV-0003IO-Gt for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 17:33:07 -0500 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr ([192.134.164.83]:32594) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VxlOT-0003IF-Ni for 16291@debbugs.gnu.org; Mon, 30 Dec 2013 17:33:06 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,576,1384297200"; d="scan'208";a="51057469" Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr (HELO pluto) ([80.67.176.83]) by mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP/TLS/AES128-SHA; 30 Dec 2013 23:33:03 +0100 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) To: Stefano Lattarini Subject: Re: bug#16291: Use of /bin/rm References: <87a9fjfhtq.fsf@gnu.org> <52C09F70.5010405@gmail.com> <87vby6e42t.fsf@gnu.org> <52C1A211.5040705@gmail.com> <87wqimcb48.fsf@gnu.org> <52C1ED47.7080009@gmail.com> X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 10 =?utf-8?Q?Niv=C3=B4se?= an 222 de la =?utf-8?Q?R?= =?utf-8?Q?=C3=A9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2013 23:33:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: <52C1ED47.7080009@gmail.com> (Stefano Lattarini's message of "Mon, 30 Dec 2013 23:01:43 +0100") Message-ID: <87ha9qc6lc.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130007 (Ma Gnus v0.7) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: 16291 Cc: 16291@debbugs.gnu.org X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -4.0 (----) Stefano Lattarini skribis: > On 12/30/2013 09:55 PM, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: >> >> [MEGA-SNIP] >> >> No; I=E2=80=99m asking because the tests specifically refer to /bin/rm. >> What=E2=80=99s the reason? >> > Copying from my first reply: > > Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > > Would it be possible to change these tests to use =E2=80=98rm=E2=80= =99 > > instead of /bin/rm? What do you think? > > > That would be a bad idea, because we would miss warning from systems > where /bin/rm is deficient but the user has installed a better rm > (maybe from GNU coreutils) earlier in PATH. > > To reiterate, we want to find out about deficiencies in the "base > system" even if the user who is running the Automake testsuite has > mitigated them by installing better tools earlier in his PATH. OK, got it now. Thanks for taking the time. Ludo=E2=80=99. From unknown Sat Jun 21 03:09:48 2025 Received: (at fakecontrol) by fakecontrolmessage; To: internal_control@debbugs.gnu.org From: Debbugs Internal Request Subject: Internal Control Message-Id: bug archived. Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:24:04 +0000 User-Agent: Fakemail v42.6.9 # This is a fake control message. # # The action: # bug archived. thanks # This fakemail brought to you by your local debbugs # administrator