On Sun, Oct 31, 2010, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 08:11:19PM +0100, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
On Sun, 31.10.2010 at 17:06:03 +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
IMHO this option should be removed and rm(1) should fail when a user is
trying to use it.
No, this is a
On Tue, 2010-11-02 at 01:40 +, 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
On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 20:11 +0100, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
On Sun, 31.10.2010 at 17:06:03 +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 09:21:28AM +, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
Author: uqs
Date: Sun Oct 31 09:21:27 2010
New Revision: 214596
URL:
On Mon Nov 1 10, Ken Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 20:11 +0100, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
On Sun, 31.10.2010 at 17:06:03 +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 09:21:28AM +, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
Author: uqs
Date: Sun Oct 31 09:21:27 2010
New
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Alexander Best arun...@freebsd.org wrote:
On Mon Nov 1 10, Ken Smith wrote:
On Sun, 2010-10-31 at 20:11 +0100, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
On Sun, 31.10.2010 at 17:06:03 +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 09:21:28AM +, Ulrich Spoerlein
Author: uqs
Date: Sun Oct 31 09:21:27 2010
New Revision: 214596
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/214596
Log:
Elaborate some more on the non-security implications of using -P
Submitted by: delphij
Discussion at:svn-src-all
Modified:
head/bin/rm/rm.1
Modified:
On Sun Oct 31 10, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
Author: uqs
Date: Sun Oct 31 09:21:27 2010
New Revision: 214596
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/214596
Log:
Elaborate some more on the non-security implications of using -P
thanks a lot. i think there are a few typos though (see
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 09:21:28AM +, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
Author: uqs
Date: Sun Oct 31 09:21:27 2010
New Revision: 214596
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/214596
Log:
Elaborate some more on the non-security implications of using -P
[...]
+.Pp
+N.B.: The
+.Fl P
+flag
On Sun Oct 31 10, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 09:21:28AM +, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
Author: uqs
Date: Sun Oct 31 09:21:27 2010
New Revision: 214596
URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/214596
Log:
Elaborate some more on the non-security
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 08:11:19PM +0100, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
On Sun, 31.10.2010 at 17:06:03 +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
IMHO this option should be removed and rm(1) should fail when a user is
trying to use it.
No, this is a POLA violation for no apparent gain. The flag has been
On Sun, 31.10.2010 at 20:50:03 +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 08:11:19PM +0100, Ulrich Spoerlein wrote:
On Sun, 31.10.2010 at 17:06:03 +0100, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
IMHO this option should be removed and rm(1) should fail when a user is
trying to use it.
11 matches
Mail list logo