DragonFly bugs List (threaded) for 2005-06
Re: new expected behavior? src/bin/rm/rm.c
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 09:00:21PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> The question is whether -I should override -f, whether we should require
> two -f's to override -I (since -I is supposed to be a safety feature),
> whether the default csh.cshrc should contain the alias, and/or whether
> the 'rm' program should be smart and detect background operation
> (which is easy to test) and disable -I if so.
> I am kinda leaning towards detecting background operation and disabling
> -I in that case, plus also requiring two -f's to override a prior -I.
> What do people think?
I don't want to specify -ff every time I remove something from a default
The value, I thought, of -I was that it doesn't ask about *every* file
vs 'rm -ir'; if you use -I as a shell alias, what's the problem with
overriding it with -f? Habitual "-rf" entries are not a dumb user trait,
it's an experienced admin trait. If people learn with -I they'll never
start accidently using -f, they may only use it in scripts.
The real benefit of -I is that it means we don't need to specify -f all
the time, so what's the problem of -f overriding -i _and_ -I, when it is
used? -- in which case a background test is not really necessary (but
may be a good idea anyway).
George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator Linux BSD IXOYE
http://galis.org/george/ cell:646-331-2027 mailto:george@xxxxxxxxx