On 12/30/2013 02:17 AM, Linda Walsh wrote: > Bernhard Voelker wrote: >> However, although -x is indeed a common option of several >> programs, we are reluctant to add new short options. >> >> I'd only consider doing so for compatibility reasons > > I'm looking at compatibility reasons with > coreutil programs that recurse directories.
> All of the other *recursive* core utils that have the ability to > isolate action to 1 file system have -x. > > chmod, cp, df, ls, dir, du > > find uses "-xdev" > tar uses -x > secure rm (srm) uses -x > mkzftree uses -x (makes a zisofs) > > primarily was thinking about consistency in the coreutils -- Stop, stop, stop. This is not an 'which program has a -x option?' contest. Some of the above programs don't even have a -x or --one-file-system option (e.g. chmod) while others have a -x option, but that don't stand for --one-file-system (e.g. df and ls); and finally, some are not even part of coreutils package (e.g. tar). To stick to your argument - "compatibility" among coreutils programs - here is a little list: * These coreutils programs have a -x option (with mostly a completely different meaning, of course): cp df du ls od shred stty test * These coreutils programs have a --recursive option: chcon chgrp chmod chown cp ls rm * These coreutils programs have a --one-file-system option: cp du rm So even with that more accurate table, this is a quite weak argument to add "rm -x". What I meant (and I thought that would be obvious): I wanted to know if there are other 'rm' implementations which have the -x option - the *BSDs, Solaris, etc. Have a nice day, Berny