Subject: Re: bug#16287: RFE rm "-x" == "--one-file-system"

From: Linda Walsh <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 17:17:18 -0800

Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> On 12/29/2013 06:10 PM, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> Would it be possible to let rm have a -x flag
>> to be consistent with other utils that use -x to mean
>> --one-file-system?  It seems to be a widespread
>> convention.
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion.
> However, although -x is indeed a common option of several
> programs, we are reluctant to add new short options.
> 
> I'd only consider doing so for compatibility reasons
----
	I'm looking at compatibility reasons with
coreutil programs that recurse directories.

More important that other implementations, would be an expectation
of similar switch options within one "distribution" of these programs.

Of the core utils that recurse directories, only "chgrp" does not
have an option to stay on the current file system.

All of the other *recursive* core utils that have the ability to
isolate action to 1 file system have -x.

chmod, cp, df, ls, dir, du

find uses "-xdev"
tar uses -x
secure rm (srm) uses -x
mkzftree uses -x (makes a zisofs)

primarily was thinking about consistency in the coreutils --
for that matter, chgrp should probably follow suit in providing
the ability to stay on 1 fs, and -x as it's the only recursive utils
that doesn't provide that ability.

As you mention the only other 'rm' util secure rm,
also provides -x.

Suppose you didn't put it to use to mean what all those other
utilities use it for.

How could would it be if it took on some completely different (and perhaps
cross-purpose) meaning?   Wouldn't consistency among those tools that
have recursive options be desirable?