new expected behavior? src/bin/rm/rm.c
joerg at britannica.bec.de
Fri Jun 3 09:44:13 PDT 2005
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 09:33:52AM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
> 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.
I think it *must* override -I, otherwise it is not POSIX anymore.
-f is meant to be "do what I say and shut up".
More information about the Bugs