Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Shouldn't we should either deprecate and undocument that option or >> make it work once again? > > Either is fine with me. Here's a proposed patch to make it work. I > noticed some other bugs in this area (also in chmod) and this patch > fixes them too. > > 2004-06-08 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Adjust chmod and chown to be similar if -c or -v are given. In > particular, a no-op chown is no longer reported as a change; this > reverts to previous behavior. Also, fix both commands so that -v > report failures even if the failure is not due to the chmod or > chown syscalls. > > * src/chmod.c (CH_NOT_APPLIED): New constant. > (describe_change): Handle it. > (process_file): Use it, if a symlink wasn't changed. > (mode_changed): Return bool, not int. Accept new argument > NEW_MODE; all callers changed. This lets us avoid statting the > file unless the new mode has unusual bits. > (process_file): Return -1 on error. With -v, report all errors > verbosely, not just some. > > * src/chown-core.c (change_file_owner): Return -1 on error, not > 1 sometimes and -1 on others. Our caller ORs together our results, > and (-1 | 1) == 0 on ones-complement hosts. > With -v report all errors verbosely, not just some. > Fix bug when chopt->root_dev_ino && !chopt->affect_symlink_referent: > file_stats wasn't set properly in that case. > > * tests/chgrp/basic: Adjust to above changes.
Thanks, again. I've applied this one, too. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
