On 5/28/19 4:38 PM, Chet Ramey wrote: > On 5/28/19 8:32 AM, Tim Rühsen wrote: > >> configure: error: Your 'rm' program is bad, sorry. >> ######### >> >> Is it possible to fix the loadable 'rm' command ? >> Let me know if you want me to provide a patch. > > Well, it's hard to know exactly what the problem is here, despite the > volumes of text produced, because the error message doesn't include the > command it tried. > > I assume we can fix this particular problem by having rm return 0 if there > aren't any operands and -f was supplied. That fix is attached.
Thanks, LGTM and works for me. I meanwhile applied similar code, but having it upstream is way better :-) > If it's somthing else, there is code in bash, used by the loadable > builtins, to return a special status that causes the execution code to fall > back to the disk version of a command. The `rm' loadable already uses it > for `-i'. We just need to add it for additional cases. I guess -r and -f are all we need for standard ./configure runs. That's my main point for using rm as loadable, rm gets invoked easily by 1-2k times here for a single run. Since distributions like Debian doesn't deliver binaries from examples/, how can we get the rm loadable into builtins/ ? (What is missing that has to be done). Regards, Tim
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
