Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:31:16 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> To: Gregory Bond <gnb@itga.com.au> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unexpected softupdate inconsistency Message-ID: <20040311003115.GL10121@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> In-Reply-To: <200403110014.LAA17110@lightning.itga.com.au> References: <200403110014.LAA17110@lightning.itga.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2004-Mar-11 11:14:01 +1100, Gregory Bond <gnb@itga.com.au> wrote: >The key phrase here is "What does vim do here _that rm doesn't_?" > >If vim is also just using unlink() then rm can (theoretically) do the job just >as well. It seems like really odd advice to say "use vim because rm can't do >the job." If this were in any way true, then I'd call that a serious bug in >rm. If the filename to delete includes non-printing or magic-to-the-shell characters (and especially ones with the top bit set), it can be difficult to specify the filename as a command-line argument to rm(1). In these cases, directory-editing modes in editors (or a scripting language like perl) can be very helpful. This isn't a bug in rm(1) and is not necessarily a bug in the shell. It is fairly common when [l]users use GUI tools to create files or use sockaddr_in addresses on AF_UNIX sockets - which I've seen done. -- Peter Jeremy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040311003115.GL10121>