new expected behavior? src/bin/rm/rm.c
sdrhodus at gmail.com
Fri Jun 3 05:51:22 PDT 2005
On 6/3/05, Matthew Dillon <dillon at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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?
Why couldn't one just run 'rm -rf /usr/blah' then hit ^Z and type bg
to background the rm process. I don't see that just because the
process is being put into the background we shouldn't prompt.
Disabling the check for background processes defeats half of the
usages of the check. If the user doesn't like the safety belt its
easy enough to remove.
More information about the Bugs