Re: GNU rm's man page doesn't name chattr as a "See Also"program

[Richard Dawe]

Hello.

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
> 
>    Why do I feel like I am being flamed?
> 
> You're not being flamed, you will know when you are being flamed by
> me. :-)

OK. Hopefully that will never happen! 8)
 
>    I'm not saying that we should document chattr. (OK, I wasn't
>    particularly clear in my previous mail.) I'm saying we should
>    include some information about chattr in the documentation: like
>    pointing out its existence.
> 
> This still doesn't solve the problem about keeping the information up
> to date for each file-system and operating system.  For example ext2
> doesn't (this may have changed over the years) support the immutable
> flag.

Linux kernel 2.2.23 seems to support the immutable flag. I tried concatenating
some text to the file and hardlinking to it. It failed with errors about the
permission. This error (for the concantenation) looks just like the kind of
errors you'd get if it was a read-only file.

> I have no idea about what the status is for JFS, XFS, ext3,
> etc.n But hey, if Jim Meyering wants this stuff and gets someone to
> keep the information updated all the time I don't see a problem.  What
> I'm just saying is that it is a lot of things to keep track of.

That's true.

Jim: Would you be willing to have text in the fileutils docs that points out
that there are other file properties, like the immutable flags, that may stop
rm, mv, etc. from removing/modifying a file? Or does this belong, say, in the
FAQ?

Thanks, bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe [ http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/ ]