Re: new expected behavior? src/bin/rm/rm.c

["Thomas E. Spanjaard" <tgen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     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 agree. Also, you shouldn't need two -f's to override -I if it's a 
background job (but I think you had that idea all along ;)).

Cheers,
		-- Thomas E. Spanjaard
		   tgen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx