[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK
From: |
Karl Berry |
Subject: |
bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK |
Date: |
Sat, 11 Dec 2021 14:52:12 -0700 |
Hi Mike, Peter,
> or do we document that we expect `rm -f` to work,
I don't see a reason to break working code wrt rm -f merely for cosmetic
purposes.
test -z "$(VAR)" || rm -f $(VAR)
does not actually seem "awful" to me. And I fail to see any significant
gain by simplifying it.
Whatever POSIX says, we can be sure that reality differs.
Although systems that fail on "rm -f" are few and far between by now,
they are not nonexistent. So why break them?
My idea is to let the existing code stand (forever).
In the alternative, I agree with Peter that at least providing an
overridable variable would be desirable. --thanks, karl.
- bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK, Mike Frysinger, 2021/12/10
- bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK, Peter Johansson, 2021/12/10
- bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK, Mike Frysinger, 2021/12/11
- bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK, Peter Johansson, 2021/12/11
- bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK,
Karl Berry <=
- bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK, Moritz Klammler, 2021/12/11
- bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK, Mike Frysinger, 2021/12/13
- bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK, Karl Berry, 2021/12/15
- bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK, Mike Frysinger, 2021/12/15
- bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK, Karl Berry, 2021/12/16
- bug#10828: [RFC] POSIX will say running "rm -f" with no argument is OK, Karl Berry, 2021/12/11