Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>
> "Matthew D. Fuller" wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 02:18:44AM +0200, a little birdie told me
> > that Maxim Sobolev remarked
> > >
> > > If your logic is right, then attempt to remove existent files from FAT using
> > > '*' should yield absolutely the same result (
"Matthew D. Fuller" wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 02:18:44AM +0200, a little birdie told me
> that Maxim Sobolev remarked
> >
> > If your logic is right, then attempt to remove existent files from FAT using
> > '*' should yield absolutely the same result (i.e. EINVAL). But in fact files
> > be
On Tue, Nov 09, 1999 at 02:18:44AM +0200, a little birdie told me
that Maxim Sobolev remarked
>
> If your logic is right, then attempt to remove existent files from FAT using
> '*' should yield absolutely the same result (i.e. EINVAL). But in fact files
> being removed from FAT w/o any problems (
Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
>
> > Does anybody can explain why two absolutely identical attempts to remove
> > unexistent files on UFS and FAT32 yields different error codes ("No such
> > file or directory" and "Invalid argument" respectively)? This breaks "rm
>
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Does anybody can explain why two absolutely identical attempts to remove
> unexistent files on UFS and FAT32 yields different error codes ("No such
> file or directory" and "Invalid argument" respectively)? This breaks "rm
> -f" behaviour, because instea
