From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Mar 9 00:46:19 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA18817 for freebsd-questions-outgoing; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 00:46:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from gdi.uoregon.edu (gdi.uoregon.edu [128.223.170.30]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA18697 for ; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 00:46:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dwhite@gdi.uoregon.edu) Received: from localhost (dwhite@localhost) by gdi.uoregon.edu (8.8.7/8.8.8) with SMTP id AAA04165; Mon, 9 Mar 1998 00:45:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dwhite@gdi.uoregon.edu) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 1998 00:45:56 -0800 (PST) From: Doug White Reply-To: Doug White To: Studded cc: FreeBSD-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Weirdness with rm In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 8 Mar 1998, Studded wrote: > This is something I've always wondered about, but didn't have a > chance to ask. :) If I try to rm a file that I don't have permissions > for, rm first asks me if I want to override, then tells me that it can't > delete the file anyway. I realize that there are situations where rm does > override permissions, but it seems to me that if it can't override the > permissions anyway, the two checks are superfluous. > > Is there some reason that rm wouldn't do the "absolute" check > before it asks if I want to override the perms? Here is an example: > > 73$ rm *.DIST > override rw-r----- root/bin for rc.conf.5.DIST? y > rm: rc.conf.5.DIST: Permission denied Just to warn you, I guess? -f will quiet it. Doug White | University of Oregon Internet: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | Residence Networking Assistant http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite | Computer Science Major To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message