On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 15:53 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote: > On Saturday 17 November 2007 15:41, Bryen wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 15:30 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote: > > > ... > > > > > I've known users (dare I say, "lusers") to override rm with a > > > script that moves the target files to a trashcan folder. > > > > Hmm... That would be an interesting project to try to create. What a > > way for me to flex my current knowledge and expand on it. :-) > > It's no big deal. Write an "rm" replacement script that moves files to a > specified trash folder rather than simply unlink them. The only thing > you really have to worry about is name clashes. When that happens, add > a suffix (making sure that the suffix is unique, of course). With a bit > more work, you could additionally mimic the file system hierarchy > within the trash folder, but that doesn't get you out of handling > multiple deletes of the same name (since files often get recreated > after they're deleted). > So how would a script called rm not conflict with the real rm McCoy? Nothing to you, but I'm just starting to get into scripting. :-)
Critique me here. As I'm going by theory. I would move the current /bin/rm to a new location. Then I would create an rm script and place it in /bin where the current rm was located. But within the rm script, I would point to the rm command's full path when using rm's functionality. Thus users would never see the difference when they run /bin/rm, but the script does the interpretation to /somewherelse/rm. Did I figure it out right? -- ---Bryen--- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
