Re: rm seems to fail

On 1/14/09, Larry Hall wrote: > greenup greenup wrote: > > I notice someone else is having problems with their X lock files; that > > was one of the things that got me started fiddling with rm. Today is > > busy for me, so I'm not sure that I'll get to strace/etc, but > > hopefully tomorrow. I c

Re: rm seems to fail

greenup greenup wrote: I notice someone else is having problems with their X lock files; that was one of the things that got me started fiddling with rm. Today is busy for me, so I'm not sure that I'll get to strace/etc, but hopefully tomorrow. I checked another box in my house, that seems to b

Re: rm seems to fail

I notice someone else is having problems with their X lock files; that was one of the things that got me started fiddling with rm. Today is busy for me, so I'm not sure that I'll get to strace/etc, but hopefully tomorrow. I checked another box in my house, that seems to be working fine with mostl

Re: rm seems to fail

Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: > greenup greenup wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: >>> greenup greenup wrote: broken again/still. On 1/13/09, Mark J. Reed wrote: >>> Any luck on the BLODA front? >>> >> Afraid I don't know BLODA, but disabling the virus

Re: rm seems to fail

greenup greenup wrote: On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: greenup greenup wrote: broken again/still. On 1/13/09, Mark J. Reed wrote: Any luck on the BLODA front? Afraid I don't know BLODA, but disabling the virus scanner for a few minutes didn't work.

Re: rm seems to fail

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: > greenup greenup wrote: >> >> broken again/still. >> >> On 1/13/09, Mark J. Reed wrote: > > Any luck on the BLODA front? > Afraid I don't know BLODA, but disabling the virus scanner for a few minutes didn't work. -- Unsubscribe info:

Re: rm seems to fail

greenup greenup wrote: broken again/still. On 1/13/09, Mark J. Reed wrote: On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM, greenup wrote: > your perl test was a nice try; but it also did not remove the file, > which is revealing. I should have included a return code check: perl -e 'unlink("goo/foo") or di

RE: rm seems to fail

> -Original Message- > From: greenup greenup > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 3:03 PM > > This machine uses Mcaffee OAS. And it appears I don't have the power > to disable it even to test. Mixed feelings about that... there are > some users that would leave it off a lot... You can temp

Re: rm seems to fail

broken again/still. On 1/13/09, Mark J. Reed wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM, greenup wrote: > > your perl test was a nice try; but it also did not remove the file, > > which is revealing. > I should have included a return code check: > > perl -e 'unlink("goo/foo") or die $!' > d...@w2

Re: rm seems to fail

On 1/13/09, Dave Korn wrote: > greenup greenup wrote: > > On 1/13/09, Mark J. Reed wrote: > >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM, greenup wrote: > >> > your perl test was a nice try; but it also did not remove the file, > >> > which is revealing. > >> I should have included a return code check

Re: rm seems to fail

greenup greenup wrote: > On 1/13/09, Mark J. Reed wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM, greenup wrote: >> > your perl test was a nice try; but it also did not remove the file, >> > which is revealing. >> I should have included a return code check: >> perl -e 'unlink("goo/foo") or die $!' >

Re: rm seems to fail

Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote: > Mark J. Reed wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM, greenup wrote: >> So at this point I'm at a loss. I'm running the same version of >> Cygwin (though on Vista, not XP) on the same type of filesystem (NTFS) >> and not seeing the issue. Is there any way this coul

Re: rm seems to fail

On 1/13/09, Mark J. Reed wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM, greenup wrote: > > your perl test was a nice try; but it also did not remove the file, > > which is revealing. > I should have included a return code check: > perl -e 'unlink("goo/foo") or die $!' the return code check worked!!

Re: rm seems to fail

Mark J. Reed wrote: On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM, greenup wrote: your perl test was a nice try; but it also did not remove the file, which is revealing. I should have included a return code check: perl -e 'unlink("goo/foo") or die $!' I suspect that will still run silently without removin

Re: rm seems to fail

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM, greenup wrote: > your perl test was a nice try; but it also did not remove the file, > which is revealing. I should have included a return code check: perl -e 'unlink("goo/foo") or die $!' I suspect that will still run silently without removing the file, indicati

Re: rm seems to fail

"not a universal problem" is good and bad... good that this is widespread, bad that it's harder to debug on just my system. I renamed the other rm, (after checking to see if it worked... it does, but even though it can cope with forward slashes, it hates /cygdrive/d/..." I also tried backing dow

Re: rm seems to fail

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 1:57 PM, greenup wrote: > d...@w2 ~ > $ rm -v goo/foo > rm: remove write-protected regular empty file `goo/foo'? y > removed `goo/foo' > > d...@w2 ~ > $ echo $? > 0 > > d...@w2 ~ > $ ls -la goo > total 0 > drwxr-xr-x+ 2 dz mkgroup-l-d 0 Jan 13 08:10 . > drwxrwx---+

Re: rm seems to fail

oops. forgot to scrub mail headers for email addrs. Sorry about that. does the list archive scrub? -greenup On 1/13/09, greenup greenup wrote: > On 1/13/09, Mark J. Reed wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM, greenup wrote: -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-sim

Re: rm seems to fail

On 1/13/09, Mark J. Reed wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM, greenup wrote: > > oh, I forgot to mention: right after doing the rm, the return code is > > success, even though it failed to actually remove the file. > rm with -f is silent about certain types of errors, usually of the > "fi

Re: rm seems to fail

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM, greenup wrote: > oh, I forgot to mention: right after doing the rm, the return code is > success, even though it failed to actually remove the file. rm with -f is silent about certain types of errors, usually of the "file doesn't exist" variety. So that sounds li

Re: rm seems to fail

oh, I forgot to mention: right after doing the rm, the return code is success, even though it failed to actually remove the file. d...@w2 ~ $ rm -f goo/foo d...@w2 ~ $ echo $? 0 On 1/13/09, greenup greenup wrote: >... > d...@w2 ~ > $ mkdir goo > > d...@w2 ~ > $ touch goo/foo > > d...@w2 ~ >

Fwd: rm seems to fail

I seem to have problems with rm. specifically, even when using -f it won't remove files, if the permissions are restricted to read-only. -f is supposed to be the "I don't care, just do it" switch. At one point moved my whole "c:\cygwin" hierarchy to a backup, rebooted and reinstalled, to try and