diblanch@sdrc.UUCP (Jeff Blanchet) (03/11/89)
I seem to have stumbled across a bug that occurs on the HP. I created a file
called "-ls". Now on any other UNIX system all I have to do is issue the
command "rm -i *". This doesn't work on the HP 9000/300 series running
HP U/X 6.0 and 6.2. I tried all kinds of different ways to get rid of
the file. I tried using the "mv" command but that didn't work on the 300.
I tried the mv command on the 800 and I could use the "mv" command and
then remove the file.
Anyway I have found one way to get rid of a file with this type of name.
"find . -name "-ls" -exec rm {} \;" got rid of the file.
Pretty interesting!!! Anyone else know of a way to delete such a file?
P.S. I have tried using "rm -i *" on other UNIX systems and it works fine.
Jeff Blanchet UUCP: uunet!sdrc!diblanch
SDRC
Cincinnati Ohiomilburn@me1.lbl.gov (John Milburn) (03/11/89)
In article <570@sdrc.UUCP> diblanch@sdrc.UUCP (Jeff Blanchet) writes: >I seem to have stumbled across a bug that occurs on the HP. I created a file >called "-ls". Now on any other UNIX system all I have to do is issue the Try rm "-ls". -jem
milburn@me1.lbl.gov (John Milburn) (03/11/89)
In article <2087@helios.ee.lbl.gov> JEMilburn@lbl.gov writes: >In article <570@sdrc.UUCP> diblanch@sdrc.UUCP (Jeff Blanchet) writes: > >Try rm "-ls". Oops! I had better learn to try things before advising. This command doesn't work. -jem
leres@ace.ee.lbl.gov (Craig Leres) (03/11/89)
John Milburn writes: >In article <570@sdrc.UUCP> diblanch@sdrc.UUCP (Jeff Blanchet) writes: >>I seem to have stumbled across a bug that occurs on the HP. I created a file >>called "-ls". Now on any other UNIX system all I have to do is issue the > >Try rm "-ls". This may work under hpux, but it doesn't under Berkeley Unix. My favorate way to remove a file with a leading dash is: % rm foo -ls It doesn't matter if foo exists or not; once it sees an argument that doesn't have a leading dash, it stops looking. Craig
nick@hp-sdd.hp.com (Nick Flor) (03/12/89)
In article <570@sdrc.UUCP> diblanch@sdrc.UUCP (Jeff Blanchet) writes: > >Anyway I have found one way to get rid of a file with this type of name. >"find . -name "-ls" -exec rm {} \;" got rid of the file. > >Pretty interesting!!! Anyone else know of a way to delete such a file? > Yes. The problem, of course, is that the shell is trying to interpret the file name as command line options. So, just do something to make it realize that it's actually the file name. Try 'rm ../(current directory name)/-ls'. You don't need the single quotes. If it's on your top level directory you can type "rm ~/-ls". Or just type in the full path name. Nick -- + Disclaimer: The above opinions are my own, not necessarily my employer's. + + Oh, sure. Sure. I'm going. But I got | Nick V. Flor * * o * * + + your number, see? And one of these | Hewlett Packard SDD * * /I\ * * + + days, the joke's gonna be on you. | ..hplabs!hp-sdd!nick * * / \ * * +
allyn@hp-sdd.hp.com (Allyn Fratkin) (03/12/89)
In article <1818@hp-sdd.hp.com>, nick@hp-sdd.hp.com.UUCP (Nick Flor) writes: > Try 'rm ../(current directory name)/-ls'. You don't need the single > quotes. If it's on your top level directory you can type "rm ~/-ls". rm ./-ls is an easier and equally effective method. incidentally, the original poster claimed that "rm -i *" worked on machines other than his hp. well, i tried "rm -i *" on a 4.3 BSD VAX, and it did not work. i think the only way it could have worked is if the original poster had a file that sorted before -ls in his directory. -- From the virtual mind of Allyn Fratkin allyn@sdd.hp.com San Diego Division - or - Hewlett-Packard Company uunet!ucsd!hp-sdd!allyn
frank@zen.co.uk (Frank Wales) (03/13/89)
In article <2089@helios.ee.lbl.gov> leres@helios.ee.lbl.gov (Craig Leres) writes: >John Milburn writes: >>In article <570@sdrc.UUCP> diblanch@sdrc.UUCP (Jeff Blanchet) writes: >>>I seem to have stumbled across a bug that occurs on the HP. I created a file >>>called "-ls". Now on any other UNIX system all I have to do is issue the >>>command "rm -i *". I'd be surprised if this only complained on HP-UX. The behaviour you describe is what I'd expect on a Sys V machine which tries to be consistent about option parsing, simply treating the file name as if it were another set of command line switches. It is not a bug. >>Try rm "-ls". This definitely won't make any difference -- quoting is a shell mechanism for assembling arguments, and isn't perceived by the invoked commands. >This may work under hpux, but it doesn't under Berkeley Unix. My >favorate way to remove a file with a leading dash is: > > % rm foo -ls > >It doesn't matter if foo exists or not; once it sees an argument that >doesn't have a leading dash, it stops looking. But its exit status might be a problem if this is in a shell script, say. Now for the answer: to terminate option parsing on rm (and most other commands which accept command line switches), put a '--' in the command line. Beyond that, anything starting with a '-' won't be picked up as an option. So, to remove the offending file, use "rm -- -ls". This works on both 300 and 800 series HP-UX (and probably also 500). It is down to the individual command to recognise the '--' convention, though; your mileage may vary. -- Frank Wales, Systems Manager, [frank@zen.co.uk<->mcvax!zen.co.uk!frank] Zengrange Ltd., Greenfield Rd., Leeds, ENGLAND, LS9 8DB. (+44) 532 489048 x217
frank@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Frank G. Fiamingo) (03/13/89)
To delete a file with a "-" as the first character you need to clearly separate that file from the command options. You can do this by including another file with a "normal" name first, e.g. rm dummyfile -ls rm will then remove file "-ls" without problem. Frank Fiamingo frank@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu
diblanch@sdrc.UUCP (Jeff Blanchet) (03/13/89)
In article <570@sdrc.UUCP> diblanch@sdrc.UUCP (Jeff Blanchet) writes: >I seem to have stumbled across a bug that occurs on the HP. I created a file >called "-ls". Now on any other UNIX system all I have to do is issue the Thanks to the replys. Of course as usual in most cases a simple solution is the answer to my problem. In my original posting I stated that I could remove a file called "-ls" using "rm -i *". This works on some types of wierd filnames but not "-ls". This occurs on all UNIX systems that I have tried it on. I realize how it happens. Below are a few ways that I have received that will delete the file: $ rm ./-ls Probably the most obvious that I overlooked. $ rm -- -ls Since the dash appears first in a seperate argument the - in the "-ls" part is used as a filename. $ rm foo -ls Adding a file that doesn't exist to be first in the list also deletes the "-ls" file. The remove command will say the foo wasn't found but the "-ls" file does get deleted. Thanks to all who looked into this problem and found the above solutions. Jeff Blanchet UUCP: uunet!sdrc!diblanch SDRC Cincinnati Ohio
pdg@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Paul Gootherts) (03/14/89)
> Try 'rm ../(current directory name)/-ls'. You don't need the > single quotes. If it's on your top level directory you can type > "rm ~/-ls". Or just type in the full path name. "rm ./-ls" works too, and is a little simpler. Paul Gootherts, Hewlett-Packard Co, hplabs!hpda!pdg
raveling@vaxb.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) (03/14/89)
In article <2087@helios.ee.lbl.gov> JEMilburn@lbl.gov writes: >In article <570@sdrc.UUCP> diblanch@sdrc.UUCP (Jeff Blanchet) writes: >>I seem to have stumbled across a bug that occurs on the HP. I created a file >>called "-ls". Now on any other UNIX system all I have to do is issue the > >Try rm "-ls". That produces: rm: illegal option -- l rm: illegal option -- s usage: rm [-fir] file ... However, it DOES work to say "rm ./-ls". In this case you can fool ls by sticking in an otherwise superflous path. Now suppose you want to search for "-ls" in a bunch of files... Try a "grep -ls *" -- it hangs up waiting for you to type something. Maybe "grep \-ls *"? Same result -- the shell eats the '\'. But it DOES work to say "grep \\-ls *". But it does NOT work to say "rm \\-ls". Just a modest dose of the countless reasons why my xload window's slogan says "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Unix!". ---------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@isi.edu
guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) (03/14/89)
>Now on any other UNIX system all I have to do is issue the >command "rm -i *". I tried it under SunOS and it didn't work, either. The problem is that, if "-ls" is the first file name, the command looks to the system like: rm -i -ls ... and UNIX programs generally will *not* treat only the first argument beginning with "-" as an options specifier; as such, it thinks "-ls" is specifying the "l" and "s" flags to "rm". The fix is that you somehow have to convince it that "-ls" isn't an option. There are a number of ways of doing this: 1) pass a special flag that says "nothing after this is a flag, even if it begins with "-". The BSD "rm", upon which the SunOS one is based, uses "-" for this. The HP-UNIX one is probably based on the System V one, which means it may accept "--" for this: rm -i -- * 2) stick something in front of the "-" in "-ls". At least one overly-complex way of doing this has been presented in a previous posting; a simpler way is just to prepend "./" in front of it: rm -i ./*
jewett@hpl-opus.HP.COM (Bob Jewett) (03/14/89)
> Yes. The problem, of course, is that the shell is trying to interpret > the file name as command line options. So, just do something to make it > realize that it's actually the file name. The standard way of terminating options is to use the option "--", so to remove a file named "-ls" you could type "rm -i -- -ls". Note that this works for commands that adhere to the getopts standards even for arguments which are not files, and therefore cannot be referred to like "./-ls". Bob
pdg@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Paul Gootherts) (03/14/89)
Try: rm ./-ls Paul Gootherts, Hewlett-Packard Co, hplabs!hpda!pdg
curci@stat.uucp (Ray Curci (scri)) (03/14/89)
In article <7770@venera.isi.edu> raveling@isi.edu (Paul Raveling) writes: >In article <2087@helios.ee.lbl.gov> JEMilburn@lbl.gov writes: >>In article <570@sdrc.UUCP> diblanch@sdrc.UUCP (Jeff Blanchet) writes: >>>I seem to have stumbled across a bug that occurs on the HP. I created a file >>Try rm "-ls". >Paul Raveling >Raveling@isi.edu The usuall way to get rid of files that begin with '-' is to use the '-' flag in the 'rm' command. To remove the file "-ls", you nomally enter the command: rm - -ls The first dash acts as a place holder so that the rm program does not misinterpret the "ls" as flags to the rm program. curci@nu.cs.fsu.edu
raveling@vaxb.isi.edu (Paul Raveling) (03/15/89)
In article <7572@pyr.gatech.EDU> curci@stat.fsu.edu (Ray Curci (scri)) writes: >In article <7770@venera.isi.edu> raveling@isi.edu (Paul Raveling) writes: >>In article <2087@helios.ee.lbl.gov> JEMilburn@lbl.gov writes: >>>In article <570@sdrc.UUCP> diblanch@sdrc.UUCP (Jeff Blanchet) writes: >>>>I seem to have stumbled across a bug that occurs on the HP. I created a file >>>Try rm "-ls". >>Paul Raveling >>Raveling@isi.edu > >The usuall way to get rid of files that begin with '-' is to use the '-' >flag in the 'rm' command. To remove the file "-ls", you nomally enter >the command: rm - -ls >The first dash acts as a place holder so that the rm program does not >misinterpret the "ls" as flags to the rm program. This removes -ls, but it's because rm interperts the 1st - as a filename. It produces a message of "rm: - non-existent" and $status = 2, but does remove -ls. A footnote on reference to my signature should be that none of the referenced comments were mine. My 2 bits is that the most sanitary approach under Unix is "rm ./-ls". The best approach for both sanitation esthetics and user-humane command line interfaces is to use a better operating system. ---------------- Paul Raveling Raveling@isi.edu
rikki@macomh.UUCP (Rikki Welsh) (03/15/89)
In article <46@nisca.ircc.ohio-state.edu>, frank@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Frank G. Fiamingo) writes: > To delete a file with a "-" as the first character you need to > clearly separate that file from the command options. Or just use "rm -- -ls" -- - Rikki Welsh (UUCP: grebyn!macom1!rikki)
brad@hpiacla.HP.COM (Brad Morford) (03/15/89)
I usually write a small C program such as the one below to
remove bizzare files.
/***************************/
main()
{
unlink("BizarreFileName");
}
/***************************/
Regards,
Brad Morford
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Industrial Applications Center (IAC)
1266 Kifer Road, Sunnyvale, CA, 94086
HP-UX Mail: {hpda,hpfcla}!hpiacla!brad
brad@hpiacla.HP.COM
HPdesk: Brad Morford /HP2200/06 Phone: 408-746-5233
------------------------------------------------------------------------rdg@hpfcmr.HP.COM (Rob Gardner) (03/16/89)
Also:
rm -ir .
rm -- -ls
rm ./-ls
rm foo -ls
/etc/unlink -ls # as root
etc, etc.
Related stuff: how to remove a file with control characters,
like "foovbar" but with a backspace embedded in it?
echo "rm foov\010bar" | sh
And there's always "ls | od -c" or "od -c ." to find out exactly
what's in the filename anyway.
Of course, you can write a C program to do any of this trivially:
main()
{
char foo[14];
foo[0] = 'f';
foo[1] = 'o';
/* etc */
foo[10] = '\0';
unlink(foo);
}
raabrog@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Roger Haaheim) (03/20/89)
Why not rm -i * and answer no to all the queries except -ls?
wk@hpirs.HP.COM (Wayne Krone) (03/24/89)
> Why not rm -i * and answer no to all the queries except -ls?
Because * is expanded by the shell so the argument list passed to
rm might be "-i -ls foo1 foo2".mmcp@sdsu.UUCP ( mmcp) (03/26/89)
In article <4640014@hpirs.HP.COM> wk@hpirs.HP.COM (Wayne Krone) writes: >> Why not rm -i * and answer no to all the queries except -ls? > >Because * is expanded by the shell so the argument list passed to >rm might be "-i -ls foo1 foo2". Why not simply write a C program which uses the unlink system call to purge the file? Syd Logan mmcp San Diego State University
robert@shangri-la.gatech.edu.gatech.edu (Robert Viduya) (03/27/89)
This has been said before and the conversation still rambled on to the point of ridiculousness. What's wrong with: rm ./-ls -- Robert Viduya robert@shangri-la.gatech.edu Office of Computing Services Georgia Institute of Technology (404) 894-6296 Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0275
guy@auspex.UUCP (Guy Harris) (03/28/89)
>Why not simply write a C program which uses the unlink system call to >purge the file? Why not write a stand-alone program to read and write disk blocks, and patch memory, and patch the directory? Why not take out a little bar magnet and remagnetize the disk block containing the directory entry and the inode? As has been stated several times, if you want to remove a file called "-ls" you just do rm -- -ls which is one hell of a lot simpler than whacking up a C program to unlink the file....
troyb@hpdml93.HP.COM (Troy Bergstrand) (03/28/89)
I'm late into this conversation, so forgive me if I'm duplicating someone else's reply. To get rid of a file with a leading minus sign is best done using a pathname (either the whole path or at least ./) e.g. rm ./-ls
wk@hpirs.HP.COM (Wayne Krone) (03/28/89)
> >> Why not rm -i * and answer no to all the queries except -ls? > > > >Because * is expanded by the shell so the argument list passed to > >rm might be "-i -ls foo1 foo2". > > Why not simply write a C program which uses the unlink system call to > purge the file? This was all discussed in depth several weeks ago, but the easy ways to do it are: rm ./-ls rm -- -ls (or rm - -ls for BSD derived commands)
joanne@hpccc.HP.COM (Joanne Petersen) (04/12/89)
I was just wondering....
would the command
rm "-ls"
work? I used that form to get rid of a file that had a trailing blank space
at the end of the name (couldn't figure out why it kept showing up in the list
but "rm" could never find it!).....clarke@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Clarke Echols X3194) (04/13/89)
Try:
rm ./-ls*
The shell is trying to interpret "-" as an option.
Clarke "learned that trick the hard way with some embarrassing help from
a pro who got bit by the same problem, etc., etc." Echols
HP-UX Documentation Staff
HP Fort Collins, Colorado Siteguy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (04/15/89)
>I was just wondering.... > >would the command > > rm "-ls" > >work? "rm" is incapable of distinguishing rm -ls from rm "-ls" All the quotes do is affect the way the shell parses the argument; the argument is passed to the command in the same fashion. >I used that form to get rid of a file that had a trailing blank space >at the end of the name (couldn't figure out why it kept showing up in the list >but "rm" could never find it!)..... That's because it wasn't "rm" that had the problem with the trailing blank space, it was the shell. rm "foobar "<return> causes the shell to pass the string "foobar " to "rm". rm foobar<space><return> causes the shell to pass the string "foobar" (no trailing space) to "rm".
joanne@hpccc.HP.COM (Joanne Petersen) (04/18/89)
Thanks to all who wrote/e-mailed me that my "suggestion" wouldn't work, and why.... and what *would*.
craig@hpausla.HP.COM (Craig Ryan) (04/27/89)
Two ways:
1. Amazing as it seems, rm actually adheres to the '--' standard so as
mentioned so many times in the above responses,
rm -- -ls
2. If ls -i gives
12000 -ls 12332 .... etc
then use
find . -inum 12000 -exec rm {} \;jeffa@hpmwtd.HP.COM (Jeff Aguilera) (04/29/89)
>> 1. Amazing as it seems, rm actually adheres to the '--' standard so as >> mentioned so many times in the above responses, >> >> rm -- -ls <fu> bar $ strings `whence rm` | fgrep -c getopt 2 So it works --- for the twenty-seventh time. But how standard is getopt? The double dash won't work with mv: <fu> bar $ strings `whence mv` | fgrep -c getopt 0 >> 2. If ls -i gives >> >> 12000 -ls 12332 .... etc >> >> then use >> >> find . -inum 12000 -exec rm {} \; This works because find passes ./-ls to rm, so why not do that directly? Giving a path works with mv too, as in <fu> bar $ mv ./-ls ./-rm Ah, ha! We found the standard buried among the rubble. If you want a nice long list of programs that don't use that wonderful getopt standard, try #!/bin/sh : getopt : just say no for file in /bin/* /usr/bin/* do test -x $file -a `strings $file | fgrep -c getopt` -gt 0 || echo $file done Here are some highlights of the 332 programs on my machine that do not use getopt: /bin/ar /bin/echo /bin/nm /bin/wc /bin/cdb /bin/ed /bin/nohup /bin/xd /bin/chgrp /bin/find /bin/od /usr/bin/awk /bin/chmod /bin/gprof /bin/rmdir /usr/bin/ex /bin/chown /bin/head /bin/sed /usr/bin/man /bin/cp /bin/ksh /bin/sh /usr/bin/tar /bin/cpio /bin/ld /bin/sleep /usr/bin/vedit /bin/csh /bin/mkdir /bin/sort /usr/bin/vi /bin/date /bin/mt /bin/su /usr/bin/yacc /bin/diff /bin/mv /bin/sync /usr/bin/zcat /bin/du /bin/nice /bin/tail -------- j "standards are gooder than good" a