From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann) Message-Id: <10109241344.AA15449@clio.rice.edu> Subject: Re: Win 2000 rm -rf disaster info To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 08:44:09 -0500 (CDT) Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com In-Reply-To: from "Eli Zaretskii" at Sep 24, 2001 12:14:39 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk > I can see the same on Windows 98 SE, but only if I set LFN=n (and > modify the file name to use 8+3 aliases instead of names like .libs > and libstdc++). With LFN support active, there are no problems, > everything works as I'd expect. > > Also, when I set LFN=n and try "rm -ir", I get the following message > for each directory I tell `rm' to descend into: > > rm: directory djgpp.2/gnu/gcc-3.03/build.djg/i586-pc-msdosdjgpp/libstdc_/src/libs/libstdc_.lax/recycled' is write protected; descend into it anyway? > > So it thinks those fake directories are ``write-protected''... recycled is write protected, but I did not get a similar message for the next directory... This particular version of Windows you get lucky - but if someone sets lfn=n on Windows and does an rm -rf in the wrong spot you nuke the hard drive? Documentation isn't good enough for that, we *MUST* put a check and a fix in, even if it bloats chdir and makes it slow. > It's different here: I, too, am dumped in the lower directory, but > running DJGPP programs _does_ work, and those programs behave as if > they were in the root. For example, `ls' prints the names of the > files in the root directory. Unsetting LFN gets me back the normal > behavior, i.e. `ls' prints nothing (as the directory is empty). Aren't you petrified that by setting an environment variable we treat a non-root directory as root on one of the most common OSes out there? > I will try this on plain DOS in the evening, but I think DOS will not > let me create such a deep directory at all. Try regular DOS on the hard drive with deep directories already existing. By the way, I found no problems with number of levels, just with the short name length (fixed buffer size of 64 chars).