GNU bug report logs - #25259
gnu tools conform to ?? older posix?

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: help-debbugs <at> gnu.org (GNU bug Tracking System)
To: "L. A. Walsh" <coreutils <at> tlinx.org>
Subject: bug#25259: closed (Re: bug#25259: gnu tools conform to ?? older
 posix?)
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 23:06:02 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Your bug report

#25259: gnu tools conform to ?? older posix?

which was filed against the coreutils package, has been closed.

The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply to 25259 <at> debbugs.gnu.org.

-- 
25259: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=25259
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs <at> gnu.org with problems

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: "L. A. Walsh" <coreutils <at> tlinx.org>, 25259-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#25259: gnu tools conform to ?? older posix?
Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:05:39 -0800

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

L. A. Walsh wrote:
> I don't think the above is correct w/r/t "rm" with its previous
> functionality removed to enforce compliance with the latest POSIX
> (not the 1992 POSIX).

Yes, that part of README is obsolete. I installed the attached to fix that and 
am closing this bug report. Although my impression is that you also want 'rm' to 
be changed, that would be a topic for a different bug report.

[0001-doc-Update-POSIX-part-of-README-Bug-25259.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]

[Message part 5 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: "L. A. Walsh" <coreutils <at> tlinx.org>
To: bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org
Subject: gnu tools conform to ?? older posix?
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2016 01:39:42 -0800

In the 8.26 NEWS file, I found this paragraph:

 These programs are intended to conform to POSIX (with BSD and other
 extensions), like the rest of the GNU system.  By default they conform
 to older POSIX (1003.2-1992), and therefore support obsolete usages
 like "head -10" and "chown owner.group file".  This default is
 overridden at build-time by ... and in turn can be overridden
 at runtime ...

----

I don't think the above is correct w/r/t "rm" with its previous
functionality removed to enforce compliance with the latest POSIX
(not the 1992 POSIX).

I'm pretty sure that the 1992 version of POSIX didn't override
the historical design and behavior of "rm" by disabling
the "depth-first" removal of files if you specified "DIRNAME/.",
and generating an error message at the end (suppressible with
the "-f" switch).

As GNU utils strive for compliance w/the older POSIX standard,
I would like for rm's functionality to be restored. 

In order to make it more useful, I ask that the --one-file-system
switch have a short-form, "-x", to indicate negation of crossing
file-system boundaries.

Thanks & Cheers!
 :-) Linda

Previous Next

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