|
From: | Linda Walsh |
Subject: | bug#12339: Bug: rm -fr . doesn't dir depth first deletion yet it is documented to do so. |
Date: | Fri, 07 Sep 2012 14:30:50 -0700 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.24) Gecko/20100228 Lightning/0.9 Thunderbird/2.0.0.24 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 |
Eric Blake wrote:
You therefore may have a valid point that POSIX standardized something that did not match existing practice at the time, and therefore, it would be reasonable to propose a POSIX defect that requires early failure on "..", but changes the behavior on "." and "/" to only permit, but not require, early failure. However, I just checked, and the prohibition for an early exit on "." has been around since at least POSIX 2001, so you are now coming into the game at least 11 years late.
---- Those changes only started hitting the field a few years ago. Bash just started working to adopted the 2003 standard with it's 4.0 version -- before that it was 1999 -- I didn't even know there was a 2001.... Except that trying to get them to change things now, I'd encounter the same arguments I get here -- that users expect to be able have "-f" not really mean force -- and to report errors on ".". Not that I believe that, -- I just think most users aren't aware or don't care, but that would be the reasoning. I get it here, why would I expect someone who's job is to come up with lame rules that defy standard practice (last I looked they were proposing to ban "space" (as well as 0x01-0x1f) in file names). Attempting to deal with people who want to turn POSIX into a restriction document -- not a standard reflecting current implementations, is well beyond my social abilities. I can't even get engineers -- when faced with clear evidence of programs that put out inconsistent output to fix them. They know it's bad output -- and even warn that they are about to do the wrong thing in warnings. Somehow this is considered preferable to doing something useful. So expecting a group that is heavily into bureaucracy to listen to reason just doesn't seem like a reasonable expectation. I did go to their website though and see what they were discussing, and when I saw that sentiment was going in favor of limiting allowed characters in filenames, I was to ill to stay.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |