rm -rf does not remove files marked by chflags to be immutable. on that basis "-f" doesn't mean what people think. It doesn't mean "ignore locks" in a colloquial sense.
if you provide a lock to pkg, then pkg delete -f should not removed locked things. my 3c On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 11:31 AM Edward Sanford Sutton, III < mirror...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 7/29/25 18:15, George Michaelson wrote: > > Isn't this precisely what locked packages are designed to prevent? > > I thought locking packages was intended to stop any modification to > them so both upgrades and removal would not happen. > Another topic is its debatable 'if' -f should bypass a lock or not. > Considering -f is supposed to be able to let pkg delete itself and > perform deletes that mess up dependencies, I'd say it shouldn't be > expected that it keeps things safe from other damaging removals; an > interactive warning seems justifiable when a request to 'break things' > occurs. > > > Outside of an upgrade tool, I would think locking "base" packages was .. > > sensible? > > > > -G > > > > > > >
