Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 15:15:47 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/bin/rm rm.1 rm.c Message-ID: <20041004121547.GB4888@orion.daedalusnetworks.priv> In-Reply-To: <200410041351.13214.max@love2party.net> References: <200410041126.i94BQ273055417@repoman.freebsd.org> <200410041351.13214.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2004-10-04 13:51, Max Laier <max@love2party.net> wrote: > On Monday 04 October 2004 13:26, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > > Modified files: > > bin/rm rm.1 rm.c > > Log: > > Find out how flame-proof my underwear really is. > Other than that, this seems to be an outcome of the *ongoing* thread > in hackers. If there is any consensus in that thread, then it's that > every such goof should be conditionalized by a environment variable. > > Any particular reason for this change? Any added value in this warning > (I fail to see)? I do respect Dag-Erling's technical expertise a lot of times every day, but since I was the one who kindled the flames of the particular thread, I'm not comfortable at all with this change. Most of the replies in the thread were against, not for, the change in the behavior of rm(1). Even to patches that made it conditionalized by an environment variable and OFF by default! - Giorgos
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20041004121547.GB4888>