0000819: permit prompting only once when encountering a directory with 'rm -ir'

Notes
(0002128) eblake (manager) 2014-02-06 20:17	If we determine files are present a separate prompt is useful to cater for the following sequence in terminal 1 and terminal 2. 1> $ rm -ir foo 1> rm: descend into directory ‘foo’? y 1> rm: remove regular empty file ‘foo/bar’? n 1> rm: remove directory ‘foo’? 2> mv foo/bar /safe/foo # Handle this unknown file _independently_ 1> y By that argument, eliding the prompt for a non-empty directory is a bad idea, even if we know that the user answered no to a child (or if we hit a permissions issue that prevented removal of a child).

(0002129) eblake (manager) 2014-02-06 21:41	Conversely, in the non-interactive case, the error messages make it clear that on failure to remove a child, rm is not trying to remove the parent: $ mkdir foo $ touch foo/bar $ chmod 500 foo $ rm -r foo rm: descend into write-protected directory ‘foo’? y rm: cannot remove ‘foo/bar’: Permission denied It feels odd that adding '-i' determines whether rm attempts to remove what seems like a known non-empty directory - until you realize that the time spent waiting for an answer to the prompt is much longer and more likely for other things to happen in the meantime, and therefore worth the attempt when interactive.

(0002130) shware_systems (reporter) 2014-02-06 21:51	Suggest adding, to accent usual use case discussed in phone call: "No prompt is required if it may be determined that an attempt at deletion shall always fail, such as removing a parent directory when one of the child files was skipped over." or similar language. I think the gist should be if it's possible the delete can succeed when Step 2d. reached the prompt is required, otherwise it may be skipped. Something about if Step 2b and 2d are combined because dir is empty the prompt shall reflect this would be useful as well, applied to Step 2b. e,g, "Dir not empty, recurse into?" or "Dir is empty, delete?" being explicit there, to cover expectations for how coreutils does it. Suggest adding to Step 2b.: "If the response is affirmative and file is a subdirectory with zero file count, an implementation may indicate this in the prompt and and skip to Step 4." Additionally, so it isn't left as ambiguous, adding after that: "When file is a subdirectory with zero file count and not marked read only, it is (unspecified/implementation-defined) whether an attempt to determine the file count shall cause a change in any time stamp maintained for that file."

(0002132) geoffclare (manager) 2014-02-07 09:57	As per Eric's note Note: 0002123, the BSD behaviour should be considered a bug. I think the only acceptable optimization is to skip the prompt in 2b if the directory is empty. I suggest inserting the following text at the start of step 2b (page 3161 line 105682): If file is an empty directory, rm may skip to step 2d.

(0002187) geoffclare (manager) 2014-03-20 15:14 edited on: 2014-03-20 15:15	Interpretation response ------------------------ The standard states the requirements for prompting by rm, and conforming implementations must conform to this. However, concerns have been raised about this which are being referred to the sponsor. Rationale: ------------- The standard does not allow an optimization that is currently in use. Notes to the Editor (not part of this interpretation): ------------------------------------------------------- Insert the following text at the start of step 2b (page 3161 line 105682): If file is an empty directory, rm may skip to step 2d.

(0002212) ajosey (manager) 2014-04-01 13:33	Interpretation proposed: 1 April 2014

(0002237) ajosey (manager) 2014-05-01 10:54	Interpretation approved May 1 2014

Issue History
Date Modified	Username	Field	Change
2014-02-06 17:23	rhansen	New Issue
2014-02-06 17:23	rhansen	Name	=> Richard Hansen
2014-02-06 17:23	rhansen	Organization	=> BBN
2014-02-06 17:23	rhansen	Section	=> rm
2014-02-06 17:23	rhansen	Page Number	=> 3161
2014-02-06 17:23	rhansen	Line Number	=> 105682-105693
2014-02-06 17:32	eblake	Relationship added	related to 0000802
2014-02-06 20:17	eblake	Note Added: 0002128
2014-02-06 21:41	eblake	Note Added: 0002129
2014-02-06 21:51	shware_systems	Note Added: 0002130
2014-02-07 09:57	geoffclare	Note Added: 0002132
2014-03-20 15:14	geoffclare	Interp Status	=> Pending
2014-03-20 15:14	geoffclare	Note Added: 0002187
2014-03-20 15:14	geoffclare	Status	New => Interpretation Required
2014-03-20 15:14	geoffclare	Resolution	Open => Accepted As Marked
2014-03-20 15:15	geoffclare	Note Edited: 0002187
2014-03-20 15:15	geoffclare	Tag Attached: tc2-2008
2014-03-20 15:16	geoffclare	Final Accepted Text	=> Note: 0002187
2014-04-01 13:33	ajosey	Interp Status	Pending => Proposed
2014-04-01 13:33	ajosey	Note Added: 0002212
2014-05-01 10:54	ajosey	Interp Status	Proposed => Approved
2014-05-01 10:54	ajosey	Note Added: 0002237
2019-06-10 08:54	agadmin	Status	Interpretation Required => Closed

Aardvark Mark IV