Re: rm seems to fail

["greenup greenup" <greenup at gmail dot com>]

On 1/13/09, Mark J. Reed <markjreed@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM, greenup wrote:
>  > oh, I forgot to mention: right after doing the rm, the return code is
>  > success, even though it failed to actually remove the file.
> rm with -f is silent about certain types of errors, usually of the
>  "file doesn't exist" variety.  So that sounds like rm thinks that
>
>  Is rm without -f able to remove goo/foo (after you confirm at the
>  prompt)?  If not, does it generate an error indication?
Nope. no error.  Looking farther for an error, I tried to see if I
could get more verbose, and found "-v".  It seemed to just further
indicate that rm thought it had done its job.

dz@w2 ~
$ rm -v goo/foo
rm: remove write-protected regular empty file `goo/foo'? y
removed `goo/foo'

dz@w2 ~
$ echo $?
0

dz@w2 ~
$ ls -la goo
total 0
drwxr-xr-x+  2 dz         mkgroup-l-d 0 Jan 13 08:10 .
drwxrwx---+ 23 Administrators SYSTEM      0 Jan 13 10:01 ..
-r--------   1 dz         mkgroup-l-d 0 Jan 13 08:18 foo

obviously, LOTS AND LOTS of scripts and makefiles depend on rm -f.
This is bad. (for me, at least)

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/