grep - Bugs: bug #33747, Use rm -f in gnulib-tests
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
bug #33747: Use rm -f in gnulib-tests
Submitter: | Jaroslav Škarvada <yarda> | ||
Submitted: | Mon 11 Jul 2011 10:15:28 AM UTC | ||
Category: | None | Severity: | 3 - Normal |
Item Group: | None | Status: | Need Info |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | None |
Open/Closed: | Open |
Fri 02 Mar 2012 08:01:45 PM UTC, comment #5: |
Jim Meyering <meyering> |
Fri 02 Mar 2012 07:33:59 PM UTC, comment #4: Hmm, well, perhaps you're right, but don't you need to fix all the 'rm' invocations, not just some of them? And won't this problem come up with lots of other software, that also uses "rm FOO" to remove the file FOO?
|
Paul Eggert <eggert> |
Fri 02 Mar 2012 03:13:10 PM UTC, comment #3: In comment #2 there are not counted these from the proposed patch. |
Jaroslav Škarvada <yarda> |
Fri 02 Mar 2012 03:10:16 PM UTC, comment #2: I tried to grep through grep-2.11 sources and it seems there are only few (hoping that I didn't miss anything):
|
Jaroslav Škarvada <yarda> |
Wed 29 Feb 2012 06:03:26 PM UTC, comment #1: I dunno, there are lots of other places in the grep source code that use 'rm' without '-f'. Is it really worth our time to go through the code adding '-f' anywhere? For example, a tester could have an 'rm' that doesn't remove the file at all, but squirrels it away in a subdirectory (I've seen that), and that will break the tests too. There's no way we can deal with nonstandard rm implementations in general, so shouldn't we just ask testers to supply a rm that conforms to longstanding tradition and to POSIX? |
Paul Eggert <eggert> |
Mon 11 Jul 2011 10:15:28 AM UTC, original submission:
There are several places in gnulib-tests where rm is used instead of rm -f (as on the most places).
|
Jaroslav Škarvada <yarda> |
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follow 3 latest changes.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012-02-29 | eggert | Status | None | Need Info | |
2011-07-11 | yarda | Attached File | - | Added grep-2.9-gnulib-tests-rm-f.patch, #23639 | |
Carbon-Copy | - | Added yarda |
Powered by Savane 3.13-758e.
Corresponding source code
I wouldn't want to change all, necessarily.
Sometimes I omit rm's -f deliberately, because the file
is expected to exist, and if it doesn't I want to see an error.
With -f, that unexpected case would go unreported.
If you find a plausible case in which a conforming rm-without-f
can be made to prompt, that is a bug and we should fix it.
However, using a umask more strict than 077 does not
count as plausible.
If you are using a non-conforming rm, I would encourage
you to adjust it so that it works more like a conforming one.
I read the comments here and in
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/716330
but did not see a report of any actual malfunction.
Have you seen an actual failure using a "real" rm program?