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

Joerg Sonnenberger joerg at
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 mailing list