DragonFly bugs List (threaded) for 2005-06
Re: new expected behavior? src/bin/rm/rm.c
:On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:47:12AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:> But I'm still not sure what we should do about interactive foreground
:> operation. This may seem a bit presumptuous, but I want -I to work
:> for me!
:I'm still getting use to -I in default shell, I think it's okay and
:I'll like it more when I'm use to it. The question seems if -f should
:override -I (and -i).
:Presumably, "\rm -rf" will always be available, though if -I is in a
:shell, there's not much need to ever say -f (accept to avoid err in
:scripts), just rm or rm -r; so, assuming the goal is minimal interaction
:to get the job done as expected, the question is, should experienced
:users have to disable -I or should dumb users stop using -f unless they
:Historically, I doubt anybody has ever depended on -f not overriding -i
:(imagine that!); so, I favor -f to force, overriding -i and -I.
:George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator Linux BSD IXOYE
I've always considered -f to simply mean to have rm attempt to
override file perms. I didn't even realize that it overrides -i
until you mentioned it... that actually sounds like a mistake to me,
it shouldn't do both! I don't think we want -f to override -I. -I
is not meant to be treated the same as -i. -I is supposed to be a
non-intrusive 'smart' option.