Then if you’re wanting to only remove the directory if it has a tests subdir, the typical way would be to check [ -d "$TEMPDIR"/tests ] before recursively removing $TEMPDIR. No need for the cds or double remove.

I’m asking why, though. The “variable only” thing doesn’t make sense. If you’re worried about it being unset or not pointing to a directory, use test / [ with -n or -d. If you can’t trust your own script to not change the variable, that’s a hell of a threat model and you shouldn’t remove anything.

But you’re still deleting files with recursion, despite saying

I would always prefer deleting files without recursion and then deleting empty directories. Why is that moot? The point is not to use recursion.

So if you’re using recursion to begin with, rm -rf "$TEMPDIR" is simpler than your rm -rf "$TEMPDIR/tests" && rmdir $TEMPDIR, and works identically except for when $TEMPDIR has other files. But it doesn’t sound like that’s the case.

If you’re always opposed to using recursion, why are you ok with using it to remove the subdirectory?

You’re already deleting files recursively:

rm --verbose --one-file-system -rf "${TEMPDIR:-/invalid/615e1a5d}/tests"

I generally dislike using the set methods to change how the “language” works. So even if it covers my issue, I’m not using it.

If you don’t feel like using it, that’s valid, just as long as you’re aware of the functionality. It seemed fitting here to me because of the potential to simplify the code from a complex chain of commands with hard-coded values to a single command with no hard-coding, while keeping the old behavior.

Also if cd -> rm -rf -> rmdir solves it, why would I need to rewrite and change it to set -u -> rm -rf?

You don’t. You asked for feedback, though, so I gave some.

In general, I’m a fan of set -u because it helps to avoid some common scripting bugs, but if you’re aware of the option and how it could be used, and you choose not to use it, then I’m not going to insist you write it how I would write it.

I think you mistook my asking questions as opposition, or maybe my intent wasn’t clear enough in my comment. My main point was that while I don’t have full context for the problem, it seems to me that a simpler solution exists. Is there some edge case that the cd -> rm -rf -> rmdir snippet covers that’s missed by set -u -> rm -rf?

However, I am very, very afraid of doing rm -rf in context of variables, in case the variable happens to become empty due to user error (or later changes in script).

I get the feeling that either there’s some missing info, a misunderstanding on my part, or there might be a simpler way to do things. Is $TEMPDIR changing a reasonable case to handle? Can you change your script design to make this impossible instead? (Like replacing a source with a script execution?)

If the snippet is just boilerplate at the top of numerous scripts, I’d do set -u, rm -rf "${TEMPDIR}" on exit (ideally defined in a common setup script/function), and just avoid assigning to the var later in the script. In terms of defensive programming, anything extra is added complexity that will only make an error more likely imo. You could rename TEMPDIR to something like TEST_ROOT if you’re concerned about the variable name being accidentally used again, but no amount of trap logic is going to make a future programming error impossible.

If not them, who? I don’t know of any project that comes close to Wikipedia, and as someone who doesn’t know anything about their internal politics (although I’m open to learn), I feel like it would be a bigger tragedy if it went under. It seems to benefit from being independently funded instead of either being absorbed by some corporation with other motives, or being replaced by a product from some corporation.

One of the games of all time

You said they’re called octets because they’re supposed to be written in octal. I was saying why I don’t think that’s true.

That smells a little like folk etymology to me, are you sure about that? My understanding is that since the word is older than computers and can refer to any group of 8 things, “octet” in computing just came from the need to communicate a group of exactly 8 bits given that bytes aren’t always that size.

Slow depends on the use case. If your main bottlenecks are in code that people have written highly optimized lower-level libraries for, it could be slower to roll your own implementation or use a less mature library in a different language. And in some cases it might not matter if you take 1 ms or 100 ms to do something.

It works the other way too, and you have to weigh the pros and cons of your specific case when you choose a language. What level of abstraction do you want to work at, how stable do you need the toolchain to be, how familiar you are with the language, what’s supported in the language, how easy is it to do what you want, what’s the norm in the domain you’re working in, etc.

I’ve had some not so good pig intestine and some phenomenal, and the worse ones were similar to how you described it. If you ever decide you’d try it again, I think it’s so much better when crispy. The texture reminds me of bacon with a gelatinous, melt in your mouth center almost like burnt ends.

I wouldn’t buy a whole thing from the store unless you know you like it, but if you like cilantro and jalapeno, a banh mi with head cheese and pate is a good way to try it. It’s a delicious mix of fresh, savory, fluffy, crunchy, and chewy.

Canonical’s hiring process is wild. The number of stages is a deal breaker in itself, but the bizarre questions and the tests you mentioned don’t do them any favors either.

I lost interest in the first stage with them asking for an essay about things like what kind of student I was in high school. The full email was massive.

Slop, I think. Their replies smell like they came out of an LLM, and they have a Claude attribution in their commits. Comes off as grifting or cosplaying to me.

deleted by creator

I don’t think this paints all of atheism as a bad thing, just satirizes militant atheists who struggle with the fact that others can peacefully hold beliefs that are incompatible with their own. Reddit’s full of them, and they’re the equivalent of the evangelizing Christian that jumps on the “you need Jesus” spiel at the first whiff of non-Christian views.

In my (atheist) opinion, the two are equally obnoxious.

• How can iodéOS (Lineage fork) be installed on phones with bootloaders locked?

I just don’t understand how they can create an installer that works with bootloader locked phones, and then the OS remain completely secure.

Barring exploits, phones with a locked bootloader can’t be flashed with a different OS by design.

Thanks for calling out the bullshit, friend. Mainstream science literacy is in a sad state.