Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001392]: find(1): clarify whether -perm ops - and + should follow chmod

Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > I think I would prefer just to require consistency with chmod in Issue 8. > The difference from chmod violates the principle of least surprise. > > Another reason to disallow ignoring the umask for '=' without a "who" > is that this

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001392]: find(1): clarify whether -perm ops - and + should follow chmod

Geoff Clare wrote, on 19 Aug 2020: > > > -- > > (0004926) geoffclare (manager) - 2020-08-19 09:22 > > https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1392#c4926 > >

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001392]: find(1): clarify whether -perm ops - and + should follow chmod

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1392 == Reported By:mohd_akram Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001392]: find(1): clarify whether -perm ops - and + should follow chmod

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1392 == Reported By:mohd_akram Assigned To:

Re: [1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001392]: find(1): clarify whether -perm ops - and + should follow chmod

> -- > (0004926) geoffclare (manager) - 2020-08-19 09:22 > https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1392#c4926 > -- > I think we should issue a "standard is

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001392]: find(1): clarify whether -perm ops - and + should follow chmod

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1392 == Reported By:mohd_akram Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001392]: find(1): clarify whether -perm ops - and + should follow chmod

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1392 == Reported By:mohd_akram Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001392]: find(1): clarify whether -perm ops - and + should follow chmod

The following issue has been SUBMITTED. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1392 == Reported By:mohd_akram Assigned To: