Message-ID: <3CED102B.DAD87482@yahoo.com> From: CBFalconer Organization: Ched Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: GNU Pascal (gpc) 2.1 released References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 40 Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:54:06 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.90.168.202 X-Complaints-To: abuse AT worldnet DOT att DOT net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1022169246 12.90.168.202 (Thu, 23 May 2002 15:54:06 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:54:06 GMT To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > On Thu, 23 May 2002, CBFalconer wrote: > > > The "rm -f @XXX" should, I assume, remove everything listed in > > file XXX. It does not. That notation does not appear in info for > > rm. > > The "@foo" feature, called ``response file'', is described in the DJGPP > FAQ list, section 16.4. Section 4.7 says how to use that to uninstall a > package. The point is that it doesn't seem to function. I found your references in the faq, which basically say it is all automatic when the '@' appears in the command line. Unfortunately you snipped the portion with all the details of the commands issued. I checked that the appropriate .mft files existed, and that they contained suitable file lists, yet issuing the rm -f @XXX command did NOT delete the files. I have also checked that rm IS running the rm in the DJGPP\BIN directory. I have an alias for rm in the form "*rm -i", which should not affect anything since the docs say -f defeats an earlier -i, and I also attempted totally defeating the alias. Just in case 4dos had anything to do with it I tried executing the lines through bash, with no change. The system is NOT functioning as documented. I can easily create work arounds for the above problems, but the question is WHY does it fail, and what else may be affected? BTW, a very minor point is that "info faq" does not lead to anything conducive to finding entries by section number refs. Including the section number in the verbiage that appears at the menu level would fix that. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT worldnet DOT att DOT net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. USE worldnet address!