[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: loadables/rm not POSIX compliant

From: Tim Rühsen
Subject: Re: loadables/rm not POSIX compliant
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 17:01:52 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0

On 5/28/19 4:38 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> On 5/28/19 8:32 AM, Tim Rühsen wrote:
>> configure: error: Your 'rm' program is bad, sorry.
>> #########
>> Is it possible to fix the loadable 'rm' command ?
>> Let me know if you want me to provide a patch.
> Well, it's hard to know exactly what the problem is here, despite the
> volumes of text produced, because the error message doesn't include the
> command it tried.
> I assume we can fix this particular problem by having rm return 0 if there
> aren't any operands and -f was supplied. That fix is attached.

Thanks, LGTM and works for me. I meanwhile applied similar code, but
having it upstream is way better :-)

> If it's somthing else, there is code in bash, used by the loadable
> builtins, to return a special status that causes the execution code to fall
> back to the disk version of a command. The `rm' loadable already uses it
> for `-i'. We just need to add it for additional cases.

I guess -r and -f are all we need for standard ./configure runs. That's
my main point for using rm as loadable, rm gets invoked easily by 1-2k
times here for a single run.

Since distributions like Debian doesn't deliver binaries from examples/,
how can we get the rm loadable into builtins/ ? (What is missing that
has to be done).

Regards, Tim

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]