Xref: utzoo comp.sys.intel:1142 comp.unix.i386:3275 comp.unix.questions:20353
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!psuvax1!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!ficc!morrison
From: morrison@ficc.uu.net (Brad Morrison)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.intel,comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Unlinking files mimicking "rm -f"
Keywords: Unlinking
Message-ID: <JE:1AYCggpc2@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 2 Mar 90 14:28:19 GMT
References: <288@hitachi.uucp> <2885@umbc3.UMBC.EDU>
Reply-To: morrison@ficc.uu.net (Brad Morrison)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Ferranti International Controls Corp. (NYSEG SCADA)
Lines: 28

In article <2885@umbc3.UMBC.EDU> cs223130@umbc5.umbc.edu.UUCP (CMSC 223/01011) writes:
>
>A regular call to unlink() prompts the user . . .

[ . . . ]

>This process runs on System V version
>2.2. (Yeah I know it's old but I have no say on upgrades) The machine
>is an AT&T 3b15.

[ . . . ]

>P.S. To clarify, The problem will only arise when the file owned by
>janedoe does not give write permissions to joeblow or joesgrp.
>I can't remember the exact wording of the question but I think is goes
>something like this.

>"rm filename mode?"

Something is wrong with your unlink(), and it's not an upgrade issue,
or a question of permissions.  You shouldn't get a prompt when a system
library call fails, just a non-zero return status and (in this case)
EACCES in errno.

Before you call your vendor and complain, though--make sure that you're
not linking in a modified unlink(), or using a #define'd one.  Do you
have source?  Perhaps some well-meaning (??  !!!  #$*&^@) soul changed it.
Gak.
-- 
Brad Morrison                (713) 274-5449 |   "OK.  Come back tomorrow.
Ferranti International Controls Corporation |    Bring two apples and
uunet!ficc!morrison    morrison@ficc.uu.net |    a hammer."