Re: rm -rf and recursive nothing

[Erik Wikström <erik-wikstrom@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2006-07-22 01:36, W B Hacker wrote:
> Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> > :...
> > :> Personally I have an alias rd=rmdir (and md=mkdir), which
> > :> is a left-over from my old DOS days.  :-)
> > :> 
> > :> By the way, shouldn't -f override any previous -i or -I
> > :> option?  At least that's what I would expect.  You don't
> > :> type -f without a reason.
> > :
> > :This has been discussed (to death) before. I'd be all in for that, but 
> > :other people weren't.
> > :
> > :Sascha
> >
> >     Yah.  I've been going against popular opinion on this matter and I'm
> >     going to continue going against it.  -I is not overriden by -f.  -I
> >     does apply only to interactive shells, though, so it will not blow up
> >     scripts.
> >
> > 					-Matt
> > 					Matthew Dillon 
> > 					<dillon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Seems to me that -i / -I should indeed sit at the top of the food-chain. Always.
>
> What one is saying in effect is "I may not have gotten all this right, or there 
> may be surprises, so I want to see and specifically approve each/some actions".

The problem arises when -i/-I us used with -f, which by the same 
reasoning also should be at "the top of the food-chain". -f says that I 
know what I'm doing so don't bother me with asking for confirmation. Not 
that I don't approve of the way things are at the moment but I can see 
why some might not agree.

--
Erik Wikström