Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:48:56 -0800 From: Cy Schubert - ITSD Open Systems Group <Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca> To: Jon Hamilton <hamilton@pobox.com> Cc: Brian Somers <brian@Awfulhak.org>, markf@prophecy.com.au, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rm with no arguments... Message-ID: <199901271549.HAA26208@cwsys.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:53:54 CST." <19990127135354.7514745CB3@pobox.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <19990127135354.7514745CB3@pobox.com>, Jon Hamilton writes: > > In message <199901270833.IAA01052@keep.lan.Awfulhak.org>, Brian Somers wrote: > } > Jon Hamilton, Wednesday, January 27, 1999 5:26 PM said: > } > >On 3.0-STABLE from this past Saturday, rm -f with no arguments _does_ > } > >complain. > } > > } > I can confirm this on 2.2.8 stable also (as of Dec98). > } > Does anyone use a script where this hasn't produced output? > } > The man page says it stays quiet if the file(s) mentioned on the command > li > } ne don't exist. It doesn't say what happens if no command-line option is g > iv > } en. As a temporary work-around (just to shut it up), try specifying a "gua > ra > } nteed dummy" filename as a dummy argument: > } [.....] > } > } The man page doesn't specify ``file'' as optional, therefore it's a > } usage error and must be warned about. > > >From a purist point of view, I suppose you're correct. The down side > is that this breaks with many years of UNIX tradition. The code and > the man page should both be fixed IMO. To add to this, Solaris, DEC UNIX and RedHat do not warn when "rm -f" is entered. Regards, Phone: (250)387-8437 Cy Schubert Fax: (250)387-5766 Open Systems Group Internet: Cy.Schubert@uumail.gov.bc.ca ITSD Cy.Schubert@gems8.gov.bc.ca Province of BC To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901271549.HAA26208>