Follow-up Comment #2, bug #62227 (project findutils): [comment #1 comment #1:] > I personally like to get such a warning, as one should try to use -name/-iname > with patterns for basenames only, and I think that the use case 'find / -prune -name /' > is quite exotic (and I would never have tried it myself TBH), so I'm wondering if it's > worth bothering to improve the warning diagnostic as shown above.
I agree that it makes sense to warn for a name that cannot ever be a basename, but that means no warning should be issued for -name /, as / is a valid basename. For the record, -name / and -wholename / do not match in exactly the same cases, because the basename of the root directory is / regardless of how it is spelt: $ find /// -prune -name / find: warning: ‘-name’ matches against basenames only, but the given pattern contains a directory separator (‘/’), thus the expression will evaluate to false all the time. Did you mean ‘-wholename’? /// $ find /// -prune -wholename / find: warning: -wholename / will not match anything because it ends with /. (That is another incorrect warning, -wholename / certainly can match despite ending in /, but that is not part of this bug report.) _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?62227> _______________________________________________ Message sent via Savannah https://savannah.gnu.org/