Re: rm defaulting to -f instead of -i, why?

Subject: Re: rm defaulting to -f instead of -i, why?
From: Jim Cole (
Date: Thu May 04 2000 - 17:35:22 MDT

Dan's bits of Wed, 3 May 2000 translated to:

>The problem started when I put in my .bash_profile, .bashrc and .alias. None
>of which make any reference to aliasing rm options. So the rm deafult state
>was pre init file installations:

The rm default is rm, for everyone. The only way you ever get anything
different is through something like an alias.

>The aliasing optin doesn't seem like the way to go to me as I can't then say
>rm -f. (It's not so much that I always want to to be in the -f mode, just that
>I'd like to have to tell it - it's a security blanket I guess - when I'm doing
>an rm -r sometimes I like to make sure I'm not deleting things that I still
>want and if I forget to put in the -i switch there's no going back with the
>way things are set up at the moment.)

If you set up an alias with -i, then you won't forget it :) And a -f on the
command line will override the -i, so you also have -f whenever you want it.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu May 04 2000 - 17:24:11 MDT