Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:40:08 +0200 From: cpghost <cpghost@cordula.ws> To: Daichi GOTO <daichi@freebsd.org> Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, Masanori OZAWA <ozawa@ongs.co.jp> Subject: Re: The safety expansion for FreeBSD rm(1) Message-ID: <20070925194008.3c2d7113@epia-2.farid-hajji.net> In-Reply-To: <46F905FD.9060208@freebsd.org> References: <46F905FD.9060208@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:58:37 +0900 Daichi GOTO <daichi@freebsd.org> wrote: > Today is not unionfs. Introduction for safety expansion of rm(1). > I know that some unix folks have a experience that you remove some > files or directories accidentally. Yes, me too. LoL > > Have you any dreams that rm(1) autonomously judges target should > be remove or not? To complexify system base command is objectionable > behavior but adding some little and simple mechanism to prevent a > issue is acceptable I suppose. > > We have created safety expansion for rm(1). If you have any interests, > please try follow patch. > > http://people.freebsd.org/~daichi/safety-rm/ > > Thanks :) Interesting idea, but isn't that a violation of POLA? Imagine an unsuspecting sysadmin trying to rm something, and forgetting or not knowing about ~/.rm? Isn't it better to protect important system directories with something like: # chflags sunlink /path/to/dir and unprotect them with # chflags nosunlink /path/to/dir to avoid mistakes? Thanks, -cpghost. -- Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070925194008.3c2d7113>