Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 28 Jan 1999 15:06:42 +1030
From:      Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>
To:        Robert Nordier <rnordier@nordier.com>
Cc:        mo@servo.ccr.org, wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: "Argument by Authority"
Message-ID:  <19990128150642.S4819@freebie.lemis.com>
In-Reply-To: <199901280348.FAA29674@ceia.nordier.com>; from Robert Nordier on Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 05:48:31AM %2B0200
References:  <19990128130131.J4819@freebie.lemis.com> <199901280348.FAA29674@ceia.nordier.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, 28 January 1999 at  5:48:31 +0200, Robert Nordier wrote:
> Greg Lehey wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, 27 January 1999 at 14:38:23 -0500, Mike O'Dell wrote:
>>>
>>> just for a calibration,
>>> i asked Dennis Ritchie his opinion of "the right behavior"
>>>
>>> his comment about posix might be the trump card, although
>>> i'd like to see chapter and verse if that's the case.
>>>
>>> ------- Forwarded Message
>>>
>>> MessageName: (Message 47)
>>> From:    dmr@plan9.bell-labs.com
>>> Date:    Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:30:59 -0500
>>> To:      mo@servo.ccr.org
>>>
>>> Well the research systems from v7 (just looked) through Brazil
>>> produce no diagnostic.  So much for "should."
>>>
>>> Irix complains, suppressible with -f.  I wonder if it's in posix?
>>>
>>> 	Dennis
>>>
>>> ------- End of Forwarded Message
>>
>> On Wednesday, 27 January 1999 at 15:04:38 -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>>> <<On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 14:38:23 -0500, "Mike O'Dell" <mo@servo.ccr.org> said:
>>>
>>>> i asked Dennis Ritchie his opinion of "the right behavior"
>>>
>>> The right behavior of what?
>>>
>>> -GAWollman
>>
>> On Wednesday, 27 January 1999 at 15:59:13 -0500, Mike O'Dell wrote:
>>>
>>> i asked his notion of the right behavior of "rm"
>>
>> Well, between you and dmr, you manage to remain completely obfuscated.
>> How about including some of the previous history?
>>
>> Are you talking about whether rm without -f will fail when it can't do
>> its job?  Even that doesn't seem to make much sense.
>
> This relates to a thread on -stable "rm with no arguments" and was
> probably posted to -current by mistake.
>
>> COMPATIBILITY
>>      The rm utility differs from historical implementations in that
>>      the -f option only masks attempts to remove non-existent
>>      files instead of masking a large variety of errors.

Ah, yes, that makes sense.  Amazing what a bit of context does, eh?

Greg
--
See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers
finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990128150642.S4819>