>>>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 11:37:48 -0500,
      "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> said:

>> So, we now reached the conclusion that current implementation
>> shouldn't have the name "-rm". Right?

> Only if it should not have the name "-delete" either. :)

Why?
It seems your opinion is:
either
  1. "-rm" option should do what people expect.
    and "-delete" option should be renamed.
or
  2. "-delete" option remains as is.
    and "-rm option remains as is.

I agree 1. is somewhat reasonable, although I believe 1 is not the way
to go (due to the compatibility reason with FreeBSD).

But 2 doesn't make any sense for me.
Because it leaves "-rm" option as the state no one (including you) wants.
Furthermore, it prevents "-rm" option from correctly being implemented,
because the correct implementation introduces insecure change.

Why do you want 2? I don't get it.

I think what we should do is:
  3. leave "-delete" option as is (for the compatibility with FreeBSD).
    Remove "-rm" option for now, so perhaps someone can implement
    the "-rm" option with correct semantics later.
    Although it's not sure whether the "-rm" option is really necessary
    or not, as Hubert and David said.
-- 
soda