Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:19:27 -0800 From: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> To: Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: unexpected softupdate inconsistency Message-ID: <20040314101927.72f86abc.wes@softweyr.com> In-Reply-To: <20040311003115.GL10121@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au> References: <200403110014.LAA17110@lightning.itga.com.au> <20040311003115.GL10121@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 11:31:16 +1100 Peter Jeremy
<peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au> alleged:
> 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.
Let us not forget 'rm -i *'... Tedious, perhaps, but it does get the
job done. 'ls -B' may be helpful in identifying why 'rm foobar' doesn't
work on a file apparently named 'foobar'.
wes@zaphod$ touch foo^Bbar -- entered with ^V^B in bash
wes@zaphod$ ls -lB foo*
-rw-r--r-- 1 wes wes 0 Mar 14 10:18 foo\002bar
-rw-r--r-- 1 wes wes 263 Jul 10 2003 foo.c
wes@zaphod$ rm -i foo*
remove foobar? y
remove foo.c? n
--
Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?
Wes Peters wes@softweyr.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040314101927.72f86abc.wes>