From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Michael Albinus Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#11194: 24.0.95; sudo rm doesn't work with absolute directory paths on the file system Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:07:21 +0200 Message-ID: <87r4vwqd3q.fsf@gmx.de> References: <877gxrbz1p.fsf@rbdash.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <87obr2cwtu.fsf@gmx.de> <87ehrwdbhs.fsf@gmx.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1334041700 23464 80.91.229.3 (10 Apr 2012 07:08:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:08:20 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Cray Elliott , 11194@debbugs.gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Apr 10 09:08:17 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SHVBX-0004vo-2B for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 09:08:15 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44906 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SHVBW-0004oK-4w for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:08:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42105) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SHVBQ-0004oC-4P for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:08:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SHVBL-00076m-Bz for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:08:07 -0400 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.43]:51432) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SHVBL-00076h-8l for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:08:03 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SHVCI-0003xj-Jq for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:09:02 -0400 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Michael Albinus Original-Sender: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:09:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 11194 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 11194-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B11194.133404171215192 (code B ref 11194); Tue, 10 Apr 2012 07:09:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 11194) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Apr 2012 07:08:32 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:47970 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SHVBm-0003wt-Ll for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:08:31 -0400 Original-Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]:51922) by debbugs.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SHVBh-0003wg-AI for 11194@debbugs.gnu.org; Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:08:26 -0400 Original-Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2012 07:07:23 -0000 Original-Received: from p57BB97DD.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO detlef.gmx.de) [87.187.151.221] by mail.gmx.net (mp027) with SMTP; 10 Apr 2012 09:07:23 +0200 X-Authenticated: #3708877 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/tZcJHRmbttYoIyj6ahNq0bHUPqf/MzgNvtJV733 jws4igFp3NysGA In-Reply-To: (Stefan Monnier's message of "Mon, 09 Apr 2012 21:58:05 -0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.94 (gnu/linux) X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 140.186.70.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:58679 Archived-At: Stefan Monnier writes: >>> While using Tramp might make sense, I think that "sudo rm -rf /foo/bar" >>> is a perfectly valid command and wonder why it wouldn't work correctly. >> In eshell, `sudo' is an built-in for `eshell/sudo': > > That does not in itself explain why it doesn't do the right thing: the > intention seems fairly clear. Sure. The problem is `rm', which is another built-in. Built-ins are not aware of being called in a `su(do)?' context. Sounds like a new feature in eshell. Do we want it? Do we know, that there are no unwanted side effects, if (local) "/foo/bar" is handled as (remote) "/su(do)?::/foo/bar" for *all* built-ins, when being called from `eshell/su(do)?'? > Stefan Best regards, Michael.