[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: rmdir -p
On Mon, 19 May 2008 10:20:15 +0200
Geert Hendrickx <ghen%telenet.be@localhost> wrote:
> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 09:49:29PM -0400, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > Is the following the correct behaviour?
> > $ mkdir /tmp/rmdirtest
> > $ mkdir /tmp/rmdirtest/x
> > $ mkdir /tmp/rmdirtest/x/y
> > $ touch /tmp/rmdirtest/z
> > $ rmdir -p /tmp/rmdirtest
> > rmdir: /tmp/rmdirtest: Directory not empty
> Yes, rmdir -p will try to go *up*, not down in the directory tree. In your
> example, "rmdir -p /tmp/rmdirtest/x/y" will remove /tmp/rmdirtest/x/y and
> /tmp/rmdirtest/x but not /tmp/rmdirtest because the latter is not empty.
Yes, of course. My question is, why throw an error if the named tree
has been pruned as much as it can be. I can understand an error if I
give it a path that doesn't exist and I am certainly happy that it
stops removing directories when it hits a non-empty one because that's
what I asked for.
If I asked a gardner to prune a rose bush and he sliced it off at the
root I would be upset. If he removed dead branches and left the useful
ones I would not claim that he had done a bad job. He did exactly the
job I asked for.
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Main Index |
Thread Index |