Re: Recursive directories.

["Todd C. Miller" <Todd.Miller@courtesan.com>]

In message <Pine.LNX.4.05.9910251603560.534-100000@gizmo.kyrnet.kg>
	so spake CyberPsychotic (mlists):

>  hmmm.. it might be libs issue, not rm binary itself. I tested this thing
> on both 2.5 and 2.6 machines, while 2.5 gives `bad address' thing when the
> directory length is over 7x256 octets, while 2.6 goes up smoothly. Also on
> 2.5 I noticed that if you do rm -rf AA*, instead of rm -rf
> AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...AA, it doesn't complain and does the job cleanly.
> Another side not: I noticed that when you fire rm in gdb, it doesn't pull
> bad address, but rather returns `long file name' error instead.

Not a lib issue (since rm is statically linked) but a kernel issue
(new system calls).  You could grab the fts.{c,h} from the current
source tree and build an rm on the 2.5 system that should work.

 - todd