Update of bug #14619 (project findutils):
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
Fixed Release:None = 4.2.27
___
Reply to this item at:
Update of bug #14619 (project findutils):
Status:None = Fixed
Assigned to:None = jay
___
Follow-up Comment #15:
I have applied
Follow-up Comment #13, bug #14619 (project findutils):
Andreas, did you intend both patch files to be applied, or just one of them?
(I also must figure out where the upstream perm.texi file comes from)
___
Reply to this item at:
Follow-up Comment #11, bug #14619 (project findutils):
Eric wrote:
---
However, if it is desired, find could treat mode x as an
extension to POSIX, as equivalent to +x, so that -perm /x could
be shorthand for -perm /+x.
---
I would prefer if this special exemption was not
Follow-up Comment #12, bug #14619 (project findutils):
Updated patch, including the example suggested in comment #8 is attached.
cu andreas
___
Additional Item Attachment:
File name: find.diff Size:5 KB
Follow-up Comment #9, bug #14619 (project findutils):
Hello,
I've attached a minor documention update, giving a suggestion _why_ -perm -+x
works. I'd appreciate review.
Eric, find's -perm seems to ignore umask:
With umask 0022 the mode +r evaluates as 0220:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp$
Follow-up Comment #10, bug #14619 (project findutils):
You had a slight typo in comment #9 - with umask 0022, the mode +r
evaluates as 0200 (or perhaps you meant umask 0002, to get 0220), from the
point of view of chmod. But your doc patch looked nice.
See my note 1 at the end of comment #3.
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #14619 (project findutils):
I've moved the other issue that Eroc discovered to bug #14748.
Andreas, do you have any further thoughts on this? If you still believe
it's a bug I'll refer to the POSIX documentation and try to figure out a way
forward. However, if in
Follow-up Comment #7, bug #14619 (project findutils):
Jay wrote:
Andreas, do you have any further thoughts on this?
No, I don't. I am grateful that Eric has taken the time to explain what kind
of strings POSIX accepts, which was my main problem.
I am going to close the respective Debian bug
Follow-up Comment #8, bug #14619 (project findutils):
Might I suggest the following documentation approach for the man and info
pages:
-perm mode: exact match of set and unset bits in symbolic or numeric mode;
includes symbolic modes with leading '+' but not with leading '-'
-perm -mode: match
On Thursday 06 October 2005 17:49, Eric Blake wrote:
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #14619 (project findutils):
I don't think the original poster has discovered any bugs, rather just
their misunderstanding of the (admittedly confusing) POSIX requirements.
I just read the man-page, where it says:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Ph. Marek on 10/7/2005 12:10 AM:
On Thursday 06 October 2005 17:49, Eric Blake wrote:
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #14619 (project findutils):
I don't think the original poster has discovered any bugs, rather just
their misunderstanding
On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 08:19:45AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
The man page no longer documents the obsolete -perm +mode, which, as I
stated earlier, really only makes sense for symbolic modes starting with
'a', or for numeric modes. The man page is wrong in stating that you must
specify 'u',
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #14619 (project findutils):
The POSIX rules are that -perm mode only returns true on files that exactly
match mode, if mode is a valid POSIX mode without a leading -; and the POSIX
grammar for valid modes includes leading +. The old findutils behavior were
often
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #14619 (project findutils):
$ touch 000 100 111 777
$ for f in * ; do touch $f $f ; done
^
Obviously, that should be a chmod.
___
Reply to this item at:
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #14619 (project findutils):
Does -perm /... do what you expected -perm +... to do?
___
Reply to this item at:
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitemitem_id=14619
On Tuesday 04 October 2005 01:08, James Youngman wrote:
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #14619 (project findutils):
Does -perm /... do what you expected -perm +... to do?
I did a short test, and I believe that
find path -type f -perm /+x
gives me what I used to get with
find path
Follow-up Comment #1, bug #14619 (project findutils):
Hello,
Afaict almost any usage of -perm +'symbolic mode' is broken in .25.
(Checked e.g. u+x g=w u+w,g+r).
Contrary to my initial claim 4.2.(21-24) is _not_ ok, though, -perm +smbolic
mode has lots of false positives, e.g -perm +u+x matches
URL:
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitemitem_id=14619
Summary: find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25
Project: findutils
Submitted by: ametzler
Submitted on: Do 22.09.2005 um 20:08
Category: find
19 matches
Mail list logo
