Cloning that bugzilla as -d is noop in coreutils-5.2.1 and it could easily confuse users from usage -rf option. +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #473472 +++ Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): coreutils-5.2.1-32.el4 How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. mkdir /tmp/abc 2. rm -d /tmp/abc 3. output complains it's a directory but man page says rm -d should remove a directory. Actual results: rm: cannot remove `abc': Is a directory Expected results: dir should be removed. also tried as root, same problem. Additional info: --- Additional comment from ovasik on 2008-11-28 14:11:30 EDT --- Thanks for report. Now the option -d is deprecated in upstream coreutils - with comment: /* Ignore this option, for backward compatibility with coreutils 5.92. FIXME: Some time after 2005, change this to report an error (or perhaps behave like FreeBSD does) instead of ignoring the option. */ This option seems to be not working at all in RHEL-4/RHEL-5 coreutils, as it only activates boolean which is unused in the sourcecode. Activation boolean was removed from remove.c by http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=coreutils.git;a=commitdiff;h=fb205872c1038139e118022014db0d6d817c34ec in June 2002, coreutils-5.2.1 (RHEL-4) are releasad in March 2004. You should use -rf for removing non-empty directories, the best solution for that bugzilla would be to remove that confusing option from the help, man and info page as it is noop. --- Additional comment from juanino on 2008-11-29 14:31:51 EDT --- Since it's the first option in the man page, removing it from future versions would be a great help. I am servicing end users from another operating system and they were using the man pages heavily so they didn't read past the first option for removing a directory to see rm -rf. Thanks.
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2009-0959.html