>> this erroneous assumption is the bug
>
> it's not an assumption but it needs to look on the partition to know if
> there a directory there
>
It may need to look at THE partition (i.e., the partition on which a file
is actually being deleted, although for a home directory that would still
be erroneous; it needs to look in the home directory, not the mountpoint
of the home partition); it certainly does not need to look at EVERY
partition the system can access, even when no deletion has actually
occurred.
This is quite unworkable on anything but a standalone desktop PC. We had
to disable the trash demon (chmod a-x) before we could deploy Hardy in our
environment. Our environment is rather typical of managed Linux/UNIX
systems.
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Sebastien Bacher wrote:
>> this erroneous assumption is the bug
>
> it's not an assumption but it needs to look on the partition to know if
> there a directory there
>
It may need to look at THE partition (i.e., the partition on which a file
is actually being deleted, although for a home directory that would still
be erroneous; it needs to look in the home directory, not the mountpoint
of the home partition); it certainly does not need to look at EVERY
partition the system can access, even when no deletion has actually
occurred.
This is quite unworkable on anything but a standalone desktop PC. We had
to disable the trash demon (chmod a-x) before we could deploy Hardy in our
environment. Our environment is rather typical of managed Linux/UNIX
systems.
Thanks,
Brent