From owner-freebsd-current Mon Nov 8 16:41:25 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from shell.futuresouth.com (shell.futuresouth.com [198.78.58.28]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0651F14BFC for ; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 16:41:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fullermd@futuresouth.com) Received: (from fullermd@localhost) by shell.futuresouth.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA24668; Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:39:24 -0600 (CST) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 18:39:23 -0600 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" To: Maxim Sobolev Cc: Bruce Evans , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rm error code on FAT Message-ID: <19991108183923.C393@futuresouth.com> References: <38276863.F71C2915@altavista.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0pre3i In-Reply-To: <38276863.F71C2915@altavista.net> X-OS: FreeBSD Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 02:18:44AM +0200, a little birdie told me that Maxim Sobolev remarked > > If your logic is right, then attempt to remove existent files from FAT using > '*' should yield absolutely the same result (i.e. EINVAL). But in fact files > being removed from FAT w/o any problems (touch /fat/1.exist /fat/2.exist ; rm > /*.exist). IMHO it is clear bug in unlink error codes on FAT f/s. I think you'll find that the '*' in that case is expanded by your shell long before rm ever gets to it. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Unix Systems Administrator | fullermd@futuresouth.com Specializing in FreeBSD | http://www.over-yonder.net/ FutureSouth Communications | ISPHelp ISP Consulting "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet" To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message