| 1 |
On Thursday, March 9, 2017 7:43:50 PM EST William L. Thomson Jr. wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday, March 9, 2017 7:08:12 PM EST Michael Orlitzky wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Whether "-f" is appropriate or not depends on the context. |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > With firebird, you expect all of those directories to exist, and you |
| 6 |
> > want to be notified (so that you can update the ebuild) if one of them |
| 7 |
> > isn't there. If upstream unbundles those three libraries and you're |
| 8 |
> > doing "rm -rf", then you'll never notice, and that (now pointless) line |
| 9 |
> > of code will stay there forever. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I was assuming such. However that also means who ever is maintaining said |
| 12 |
> package is not paying attention. Relying on || die to fail when/if one of |
| 13 |
> those changes. Which I would think a safer way is to use -rf and not care if |
| 14 |
> one is removed. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> In this specific package is also related to patches. Not just that bit in |
| 17 |
> ebuild. Thus maintainer like would have noticed when patches failed. Seemed |
| 18 |
> like needless nitpicking that just leads to confusion. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Along the lines of failures. What if a system has rm aliased to prompt before |
| 21 |
removal? In that case rm -r would fail, but rm -fr would not. That would cause |
| 22 |
failures for the user and not the developer. Assuming rm does not disable |
| 23 |
prompt for a non-interactive shell. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
William L. Thomson Jr. |
Archives