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

George Georgalis george at
Fri Jun 3 09:18:25 PDT 2005

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
mean it?

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

George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator Linux BSD IXOYE cell:646-331-2027 mailto:george at xxxxxxxxx

More information about the Bugs mailing list