Re: using "core" as directory name

Stephen R. van den Berg (
Tue, 25 Jul 1995 11:14:26 +0200

Alan Cox <> wrote:
>> > Instead of renaming any directory named "core", please mail a bug
>> > report to the CVS team at <> about this. I Cc'ed
>> > them this message.

>> No, the file name "core" has pretty specific meaning, and CVS is
>> probably not wrong. It seems extremely unwise to name anything
>> important "core", if only because people write scripts that find and
>> remove such files.

>These scripts are also broken. If you want to stop core files try using
>limit coresize 0. I could just about forgive CVS getting core wrong [so
>much for platform independance] if it didnt do totally stupid things like
>not spotting core as file v core as directory. It should either keep its nose
>out of the business or be educated first.

Nonetheless, have a directory named core will prevent, for example, core
files from being generated in that directory.

In order to follow the theory of least-surprise, I'd say that especially
in a development environment as the kernel, you shouldn't have
files/directories being part of the source tree that are named "core".

           Stephen R. van den Berg (AKA BuGless).

"And now for something *completely* different!"