Any objections to the following?

[Jordan Hubbard]

OK, good point.  So, then this:

+++ rm.c        12 Nov 2004 20:51:02 -0000
@@ -192,8 +192,11 @@
                 flags |= FTS_NOSTAT;
         if (Wflag)
                 flags |= FTS_WHITEOUT;
-       if (!(fts = fts_open(argv, flags, NULL)))
+       if (!(fts = fts_open(argv, flags, NULL))) {
+               if (fflag && errno == ENOENT)   /* Don't emit 
diagnostic if force set */
+                       return;
                 err(1, "fts_open");
+       }
         while ((p = fts_read(fts)) != NULL) {
                 switch (p->fts_info) {
                 case FTS_DNR:

If no objections, I'll commit in the next 12 hours or so.

- Jordan

On Nov 12, 2004, at 11:09 AM, Garrett Wollman wrote:

> <<On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:58:54 -0800, Jordan Hubbard <jkh at brierdr.com> 
> said:
>
>> This allows:
>
>> 	rm -rf ""
>
>> To behave the same as:
>
>> 	rm -f ""
>
>> Which is to say that no diagnostic will be emitted if you're forcing
>> the operation (and ignoring errors).
>
> According to the Standard, only [ENOENT] diagnostics should be
> suppressed.
>
> -GAWollman
>
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-standards at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-standards
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
> "freebsd-standards-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"