Georgiy Treyvus wrote:
On 9/25/12 3:00 AM, GNU bug Tracking System wrote:
Your bug report
#12494: 0 exit status even when chmod fails
...
Wait. Before you folks put the final nail in the coffin I have three
points/questions:
Thanks for replying.
That shows that while it was a foregone
Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2012-09-24 21:25 +0200, Alan Curry wrote:
If the mount man page disagrees with the kernel, it's still a bug in the man
page at least.
Possibly, but the mount manpage is not part of coreutils.
(Also, the rest of the world needs to work around extra stupidity because
On 9/25/12 3:00 AM, GNU bug Tracking System wrote:
Your bug report
#12494: 0 exit status even when chmod fails
which was filed against the coreutils package, has been closed.
The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you require more details, please reply
On 9/25/12 1:56 PM, Georgiy Treyvus wrote:
On 9/25/12 3:00 AM, GNU bug Tracking System wrote:
Your bug report
#12494: 0 exit status even when chmod fails
which was filed against the coreutils package, has been closed.
The explanation is attached below, along with your original report.
If you
On 09/25/2012 12:02 PM, Georgiy Treyvus wrote:
On 9/25/12 1:56 PM, Georgiy Treyvus wrote:
On 9/25/12 3:00 AM, GNU bug Tracking System wrote:
Your bug report
#12494: 0 exit status even when chmod fails
which was filed against the coreutils package, has been closed.
The explanation is
I was helping a newbie friend of mine try to get some games of his
running. It quickly became apparent that the program didn't have execute
permission. I thought a simple chmod 755 would do the job. Apparently
not. We try again and check afterwards. Still won't execute. We do it
again. We
On 09/22/2012 10:59 PM, Georgiy Treyvus wrote:
it shouldn't be returning a 0 exit code for failure
Unless I'm missing something, I'd guess that
the chmod command is just executing the chmod
system call, which means that if it is reporting
success that one should be looking at how the
system call
Georgiy Treyvus writes:
Finally I had him show me the mount options of the relevant partitions.
Many I recognized. Some I did not. I started researching those I did
Did you notice this one?:
Mount options for fat
(Note: fat is not a separate filesystem, but a common part of
On 2012-09-24 08:37 +0200, Alan Curry wrote:
Georgiy Treyvus writes:
Finally I had him show me the mount options of the relevant partitions.
Many I recognized. Some I did not. I started researching those I did
Did you notice this one?:
Mount options for fat
(Note: fat is
Sven Joachim writes:
On 2012-09-24 08:37 +0200, Alan Curry wrote:
Georgiy Treyvus writes:
Finally I had him show me the mount options of the relevant partitions.
Many I recognized. Some I did not. I started researching those I did
Did you notice this one?:
Mount options for
On 2012-09-24 21:25 +0200, Alan Curry wrote:
If the mount man page disagrees with the kernel, it's still a bug in the man
page at least.
Possibly, but the mount manpage is not part of coreutils.
(Also, the rest of the world needs to work around extra stupidity because of
rsync?)
No, all
11 matches
Mail list logo
