Oh yeah--it's an interesting point, and we are going to think about it :) ttw+bsd_at_cobbled.net wrote: > Daichi GOTO <daichi_at_freebsd.org> wrote: > [ ... ] >> 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. > > this is a nice little feature but from an administrative point of view > i don't think it will be used (i'm infallable, as are most admins > ... at least within their own heads) and there are other more > comprehensive (i.e. not just the rm binary) tools for critical paths > (as others have pointed out). from a user perspective it would be > nice to have '/etc/rm.conf' or something so the admin can prevent user > foot shooting, however, how many user deletes will actually be performed > by 'rm'. basically, it's very clever, non-intrusive feature but i > just can't see any value from it. > > perhaps if, instead of overlapping the current flags function, you > used this feature to allow the user to be prompted when deleting a > 'uunlink' file, or so that a user may set places where 'rm' will > effectively ignore the 'uunlink' flag. still not sure how much value > but it may encourage the use of 'uunlink' so that more paths are > protected (i.e. if more binaries are flags aware we don't need to > constantly change flags to perform functions). one obstacle i can > think of is that many files may be stored on filesystems incompatible > with flags. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" -- Daichi GOTO, http://people.freebsd.org/~daichiReceived on Thu Sep 27 2007 - 10:10:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:18 UTC