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

Matthew Dillon dillon at
Fri Jun 3 09:34:11 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

    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.

					Matthew Dillon 
					<dillon at xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

More information about the Bugs mailing list