On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 01:37:11PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> 
> SODA Noriyuki <soda@sra.co.jp> writes:
> >> How does the rm option introduce a security problem?
> >
> > People may depend on the fact that current "-rm" implementation is
> > secure against the symlink race.
> > And introduction of the correct "-rm" implementation may break
> > the people's assumption.  That's a security risk.
> 
> The logic here is amazingly tortured. I can't agree with it. I'd go so
> far as to say that it is pretty much nonsense.

Well, of course it is -- every single one of your developer peers who
has said anything about this has opposed your change, so it *must* be
nonsense.

The alternative, that you should retreat from your personal preference
about how the system should be in the face of the sustained polite
opposition of *every single other developer who's said anything about
it* even though you personally think they're wrong -- now, that's really,
really crazy.

Thor