Hi Dmitry, Le Wednesday 22 May 2013 à 13:49 +0400, Dmitry V. Levin a écrit : > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 01:47:21AM +0200, Martin Quinson wrote: > > Do you have any information on the portability of this new syntax? In > > praticular, since when is it in GNU findutils, and what's the support > > of this syntax on non-GNU systems? BSD ones come to mind. > > > > Thanks for your time, Mt > > Some portability facts about find: > 1. "-perm /MODE" is a GNU extention, but may be implemented elsewhere, > too; > 2. "-perm +MODE" and "-perm /MODE" have different meaning, .e.g. > "-perm +x" means "-perm =x"; > 3. "-perm +OCTAL" is not specified by POSIX and removed from GNU > findutils, to avoid confusion. > > For more information about this issue, see > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-findutils/2013-04/msg00017.html
Thanks for reporting, I wasn't aware of this change (nor had I realized that we were using a deprecated syntax.) > [...] > > > -compat_leftover := $(filter-out $(COMPAT),$(shell $(FIND) compat > > > -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm +111)) > > > +compat_leftover := $(filter-out $(COMPAT),$(shell $(FIND) compat > > > -maxdepth 1 -type f -perm /111)) > > If "-perm -0111" would suffice, that would be quite portable. No, this may fail depending on the builder's umask. > Or maybe "-perm -0100" would be enough, I haven't seen the code. Yes, I think this is enough. We only care about the owner permission flags, the group/other permission flags may or may not be set depending on the builder's umask. Alternatively I think \! -name "*.in" would also work, as all template file names match *.in. > If not, the portable equivalent of "-perm /111" is > "( -perm -0100 -o -perm -0010 -o -perm -0001 )" -- Jean Delvare Suse L3 _______________________________________________ Quilt-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/quilt-dev
