Shell Programming and Scripting

By default, webminal don't set "rm -i" as an alias to "rm" . You can verify this command

Code:

alias | grep "rm"

Above command won't give any alias. As other members mentioned, to set alias do:

Code:

alias rm="rm -i"

Then verify the alias:

Code:

alias | grep "rm"

Now create and delete a file:

Code:

touch a
rm a

This will be interactive delete.

If you want to add this alias to your session. Then edit your ".bash_profile" with above alias.

PS: I'm part of Webminal team, logged in to answer this question

man rm:

Hi motashims,

I'm not entirely sure where the rm -if requirement came from, it wasn't here at the beginning of the thread.

But as RudiC says they are mutually exclusive, so can't be used together.

Regards

Gull04

I dont see this resolved as rm -if prefers -i over -f and asks for user confirmation while when i try to do the same thing by setting alias rm='rm -i' and then rm -f then it does not prefer -i over -f and does not ask for user confirmation which is strange / unexplained.

I take your word that -i and -f should not be used together but if used together why would the behaviour of what is being prefered change when using and not using aliases ?

Note: i m using single qoutes for setting alias and not double quotes. Could that be a problem ?

I will need another 8 hrs before i can paste the output from the terminal. But like i said you can test this issue yrself by registering and loggin to the online terminal -> Join

Hi,

It would probably be best if you were to read this.

Regards

Gull04

I can't confirm this claim; tested on Linux and FreeBSD - no confirmation if -f is present, neither when using the alias nor stating the -i explicitly.

---------- Post updated at 14:52 ---------- Previous update was at 14:50 ----------

Mayhap lakshmipathi has more insight?

According to the standards, if rm is invoked with both -i and -f, the last one of those two options specified takes effect and the other option will be ignored. So:

Code:

rm -if other_options operands

should be treated exactly the same as:

Code:

rm -f other_options operands

and:

Code:

rm -fi other_options operands

and:

Code:

rm -f -i -f -ififif -i other_options operands

should be treated exactly the same as:

Code:

rm -i other_options operands

One of the reasons the standards require this is to allow a user to override one of these options set by an alias by just adding the desired option as an option when the alias is invoked.

I make no claims as to whether or not the version of rm you are using conforms to the standards.