Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 03:11:41 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@altavista.net> To: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@futuresouth.com> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rm error code on FAT Message-ID: <382774CD.2305EDDA@altavista.net> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911081351050.2071-100000@alphplex.bde.org> <38276863.F71C2915@altavista.net> <19991108183923.C393@futuresouth.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Matthew D. Fuller" wrote: > 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. *sigh* (seems it is time for me to go into the bed ;). You are probably right - it seems I forgot to take into account shell role. So it is pure and unavoidable "feature" of FAT.... -Maxim 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?382774CD.2305EDDA>