Proposal: removeDirectoryRecursive should not follow symlinks

[Johan Tibell]

Who volunteers to fix the breakages in Cabal and add all the needed CPP?

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 2:45 PM, David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com> wrote:

> This seems reasonable, but if we have a deprecation cycle, the old name
> should (temporarily) be a synonym for the new one, and the deprecation
> warning should indicate that code intended to work with older versions
> needs to be audited.
> On Jan 6, 2015 2:40 PM, "Gabriel Gonzalez" <gabriel439 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  I think it's safer to remove the old function altogether (perhaps after
>> one deprecation cycle) and provide a new one under a different name, rather
>> than modify it in place.
>>
>> Modifying it in place risks the behavior that others mentioned where your
>> program is unsafe to compile against older library versions.  Yes, the user
>> could explicitly enforce that by putting a lower bound on the library, but
>> most users won't even realize that they need to do that.
>>
>>
>> On 1/6/15, 11:37 AM, Edward Kmett wrote:
>>
>> I'm +1 for fixing this, in place, on the current function.
>>
>>  The specification we have here is doing a very very bad thing and needs
>> to be fixed, not slavishly copied forward because someone sometime once
>> made a mistake.
>>
>>  The current behavior grievously violates the expectations of anyone who
>> would be in a situation to go and reach for it and has any prior experience
>> with any other such tool.
>>
>>  -Edward
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Malcolm Wallace <malcolm.wallace at me.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 6 Jan 2015, at 14:59, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 2015-01-06 14:57, Mike Meyer wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Johan Tibell <johan.tibell at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> This is not a bugfix. A bug is failing to follow the functions
>>> >>> specification, which *does* include following symlinks.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> It's a bug in the design, not the code.
>>>
>>> > Because *nobody* wants to follow symlinks when doing "rm -rf". Even if
>>> > they think they do, they *really* don't.
>>>
>>> I agree 100%.  Even time I use this function, I worry briefly about
>>> whether it follows symlinks, then think to myself "no, no-one would be so
>>> stupid to implement that deliberately in a publically available API".  So
>>> it was a real shock to discover in this thread that I was wrong, and
>>> furthermore that the function is documented as doing the wrong thing.  We
>>> should fix both spec and implementation, as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>     Malcolm
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> Libraries mailing list
>>> Libraries at haskell.org
>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing listLibraries at haskell.orghttp://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Libraries mailing list
>> Libraries at haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/libraries/attachments/20150106/bebce2cc/attachment.html>