Brooks Davis wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 09:58:37PM +0900, Daichi GOTO wrote: >> Hi Guys again >> >> Today is not unionfs. Introduction for safety expansion of rm(1). >> I know that some unix folks have a experience that you remove some >> files or directories accidentally. Yes, me too. LoL >> >> Have you any dreams that rm(1) autonomously judges target should >> be remove or not? To complexify system base command is objectionable >> behavior but adding some little and simple mechanism to prevent a >> issue is acceptable I suppose. >> >> We have created safety expansion for rm(1). If you have any interests, >> please try follow patch. >> >> http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/safety-rm/ >> >> Thanks :) > > This seems like an interesting extension of rm(1) in a fairly harmless manner. Yes, that's what it is :) > It seems like a fairly logical extension of the tcsh rmstar variable. The > one concern I would have with it is that unlike the rmstar variable, it would > always run even if the rm command is run in a script. > > What do you think of adding a flag to enable this behavior so users > could make rm an alias that uses the flag? That would keep it from > effecting scripts. Great! Exactly my point. We have gotten a discussion that to add an option like that or not. Yeah, we'll add an option you pointed. What is a best alphabet as option charactor do you think? -s (means safety remove)?? -e (means rm expansion)?? Is -s better?? > -- Brooks -- Daichi GOTO, http://people.freebsd.org/~daichiReceived on Thu Sep 27 2007 - 09:55:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:18 UTC