bug#15926: RFE: unlink command already uses 'unlink' call; make 'rm' use 'remove' call

[Linda Walsh]

On 21/11/2013 09:50, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
> > P�draig Brady wrote:
> > > as I don't see it as specific to rm.
> > > I.E. other tools like chmod etc would have the same requirement,
> > > and they might be handled with various shell globbing constructs.
> > > Even more generally find(1) could be used to handle arbitrarily
> > > many files and commands that don't support recursion internally.
> > >
> > > Could you explain why rm would get this and say chmod would not?
>
> Argh!  Feature creep!
>
> The reason that rm should have it but chmod should not is that it is
> to work around the POSIX nanny rule around '.' and '..'.  Chmod does
> not have such a nanny rule and therefore does not need that option.
...
> This is actually the best argument against it.  It is a slippery
> slope.  Let's not implement 'find' all over again.
----
Let's just use '-F' to force "rm" to adhere to its original depth
first path examination.  "-F" disallows applying any path related
rules until AFTER depth-first recursive execution has been completed
on the path.