Re: LSB1.1: /proc/cpuinfo
>From email@example.com Fri Jan 4 15:44:41 2002
>On Fri, Jan 04, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> My question was:
>> "How could a standard compliance test find out that GNU rm includes a nonstandard
>> option that gives GNU rm properties that are not allowed from SUSv2?"
>Where is the problem? You don't use this nonstandard option and
>everything is ok. There is no rule that a software is not allowed
>to have more options than specified in the LSB. So you don't need
>to check, if software can do more, you only need to check that
>software can do that, what the spec requires and don't do things,
>which are explicit forbidden.
Please READ the standard before you try to find arguments!
The standard says that the rm command has to use the rmdir() behavior in
order to remove directories.
As - if you are root- you may unlink a non-empty diretory using GNUrm -d
- a behavior that is not compliant with the general rules for the
- a risk fot the data integrity of the machine
If you call GNUrm -d on a non-empty directory you need to run fsck later to move
the orhpaned files into lost+found. As this is nothing you should really like
this behavior is reserved to the SUSv2 command "unlink" - you will not by chance
of a typo call unlink <dir> instead of rm <dir>
Check your keyboard: the letter "d" and the letter "f" are close to each other.
EMail:firstname.lastname@example.org (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
email@example.com (uni) If you don't have iso-8859-1
firstname.lastname@example.org (work) chars I am J"org Schilling
URL: http://www.fokus.gmd.de/usr/schilling ftp://ftp.fokus.gmd.de/pub/unix