Rob Dixon wrote:
Hi.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I am trying to use the NET::FTP module to recursively chmod files.
Either of these two ways of telling the server to chmod it seem to work:

$ftp->command("SITE CHMOD 755 $file");
or
$ftp->quot("SITE CHMOD 755 $file");


I've never tried this, but the POD for my installation of Net::FTP
doesn't mention a 'command' method, and for 'quot' it says:

        WARNING This call should only be used on commands that do not
        require data connections. Misuse of this method can hang the
        connection.


'command' I *believe* is an underlying method of the Net:: base modules, which is why the warning is attached.



...but once that runs once, even successfully, $ftp->pwd() returns an
empty string afterwards, and no files are found if I cwd to valid
directories.

I know the FTP section is working right, I can watch it run through
every file and folder in the cgi-bin recursively, *if* I comment out the
 CHMOD line.

If I leave that line active, it does CHMOD everything in the base dir,
but can't cwd after the first CHMOD.

Does anyone have any ideas of why this may be happening?


There is a 'site' method. Again I've never used it, but as a long shot
you might try:

$ftp->site("CHMOD 755 $file");

or variations on that.


The 'site' method *should* work similar to what he has, it essentially sends a SITE before a string of values similar to the way command/quot would work. Which brings me to....


Because of the nature of SITE commands being implementation specific have you determined whether this will actually work on the FTP server implementation. In other words, before digging around in Net::FTP for a bug or inconsistency try firing up a telnet <host> <port> session and sending an actual FTP session string including these commands and see if how the server reacts, and if it reacts correctly. Because Net::FTP is just sending strings back and forth (at least until a data transfer) it is unlikely (not impossible) that it is something on the client end...

I am assuming that you know for sure that the remote host is actually based on a filesystem (aka has directories, unix type permissions, etc.)?? Shocked me the first time I dealt with a record based mainframe via FTP...

http://danconia.org


-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to