linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20151003175528.GA4455@x>
Date:	Sat, 3 Oct 2015 10:55:28 -0700
From:	Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
To:	Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
Cc:	dvhart <dvhart@...radead.org>,
	Wang Long <long.wanglong@...wei.com>, shuahkh@....samsung.com,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, keescook@...omium.org,
	davem@...emloft.net, luto@...capital.net, wad@...omium.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	gorcunov <gorcunov@...nvz.org>, cov@...eaurora.org,
	bobby prani <bobby.prani@...il.com>,
	tyler baker <tyler.baker@...aro.org>,
	Tim Bird <tim.bird@...ymobile.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	andrej skvortzov <andrej.skvortzov@...il.com>,
	sjayaram <sjayaram@...mai.com>, treding@...dia.com,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	naresh kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>,
	alexey kodanev <alexey.kodanev@...cle.com>,
	linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wanglong <wanglong@...qinren.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kselftest: replace $(RM) with rm -f command

On Sat, Oct 03, 2015 at 02:11:57PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Oct 3, 2015, at 12:38 AM, dvhart dvhart@...radead.org wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 03:16:53AM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> >> ----- On Sep 27, 2015, at 10:10 PM, Wang Long long.wanglong@...wei.com wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Some test's Makefile using "$(RM)" while the other's
> >> > using "rm -f". It is better to use one of them in all
> >> > tests.
> >> 
> >> I agree that this disparity appears to be unwanted. We
> >> should settle on one or the other.
> >> 
> >> > 
> >> > "rm -f" is better, because it is less magic, and everyone
> >> > konws what is does.
> >> 
> >> "$(RM)" is clearly defined as a Makefile implicit variable
> >> which defaults to "rm -f".
> >> Ref. https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Implicit-Variables.html
> >> 
> >> Leaving it as a variable is more flexible because then the
> >> default behavior can be overridden if need be, which is
> >> not the case of a hardcoded "rm -f".
> >> 
> >> Following your line of argumentation, we should then
> >> invoke "gcc" directly in every Makefile because it is
> >> less magic than "$(CC)". This makes no sense.
> > 
> > I don't think they can be compared so simply. Specifying a compiler is a common
> > use case. Customizing the rm command is not, in my experience anyway, and like
> > Michael, I would definately have to look up what RM means.
> > 
> > That said, I care more about consistency than which is used. Both are valid, but
> > $(RM), while more flexible, will cost more people time to look up what it does
> > as it isn't commonly used than any benefit we're likely to see from its use.
> > 
> > Meh. :-)
> 
> An example is "grm" when you install the opencsw repository
> packages on Solaris. In the unlikely example where someone
> would have a Solaris machine to build Linux, overriding
> various command names, including "rm", can be useful. This
> is just one example, there are probably others.

Does Solaris rm not support -f?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/