Pádraig Brady wrote: > On 08/06/2012 12:29 PM, Ondrej Oprala wrote: >> Hi, I'd like to propose a fix for a bug mentioned in the redhat bugzilla: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755508 >> The patch adds another boolean instead of a proposed tristate, thus not >> upsetting any existing code. >> Also, if the behaviour proposed in the bugzilla entry when >> --no-preserve=mode option >> is specified is correct, I think the last test in cp/link-preserve >> should be changed. >> Shouldn't the --no-preserve=mode always create permissions of 0666 & >> ~umask? The test >> seems to assume that a 0777 & ~umask mode should be set. > > I agree with the behavior and approach of the patch. > The NEWS item might be best in the "change in behavior" section?
Actually, I consider it a long-standing bug that --no-preserve=mode would fail to do what its name implies. > Also this line should use logical rather than bitwise operators. > > x->explicit_no_preserve = ~on_off; Good point.
