On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 01:40:59AM +0000, Alexander Best wrote: > > how about a compromise then? let's leave the -P switch in rm, but make it a no > op! in addition to that add a new rm(1) entry explaining what the -P switch > did > and why exactly it was turned into a no op. let's be really eloborate on this > issue and tell the user exactly every tiny detail that lead to the conclusion > that currently the -P switch serves no purpose and thus it was turned into a > no > op. also a statement should be added to rm(1) that makes clear that the -P > flag > *will* come back to rm, once the low level work has been finished in order to > decide (from userland) whether a specific disk supports overwriting blocks or > not.
Making it a no-op silently breaks it even in the cases where it was working before. It should fail. Ceri -- Haffely, Gaffely, Gaffely, Gonward.
pgp4VIWu51YEY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
