On 11/21/2013 09:34 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> On 11/21/2013 05:25 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 11/21/2013 09:18 AM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
>>> +  /* If true (and the -r option is also specified), remove all children
>>> +     of directory arguments, yet retaining the directory itself.  */
>>> +  bool children_only;
>>
>> Should --children-only imply -r, rather than being a no-op when -r is
>> missing?
> 
> I thought about it, but as there's no way to --no-recursive,
> the posibility to alias rm='/bin/rm --children-only' would be void.

Good point (although someone using that as an alias for 'rm' is rather
brave! I'd personally create an alias with a different name than rm to
make it obvious that it doesn't remove the named argument; maybe alias
empty='rm --children-only -r' so that 'empty dir' is a self-describing
command to empty out the contents of dir).  So I'm fine with your
proposal of still needing an explicit -r for it to make a difference.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org