Re: small note about 'rm' portability

[Paul Eggert]

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> writes:

> I think this qualifies as a portability pitfall. How about documenting it?

Thanks.  I installed the following slightly-more-general change.
2006-10-24  Paul Eggert  <address@hidden>

        * doc/autoconf.texi (Limitations of Usual Tools): Document that rm
        needs operands on NetBSD 2.0.2.  Problem reported by Bruno Haible.

--- doc/autoconf.texi.~1.1099.~ 2006-10-22 21:55:42.000000000 -0700
+++ doc/autoconf.texi   2006-10-24 17:34:07.000000000 -0700
@@ -13597,6 +13597,11 @@ This problem no longer exists in Mac OS 
 @prindex @command{rm}
 The @option{-f} and @option{-r} options are portable.
 
+It is not portable to invoke @command{rm} without operands.  For
+example, on many systems @samp{rm -f -r} (with no other arguments)
+silently succeeds without doing anything, but it fails with a diagnostic
+on address@hidden 2.0.2.
+
 A file might not be removed even if its parent directory is writable
 and searchable.  Many Posix hosts cannot remove a mount point, a named
 stream, a working directory, or a last link to a file that is being