Re: Asking for tester (small patch to chown(8)/chgrp(1))
Thus spake Tim Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:27:43PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:27:00 -0800 David Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm concerned about the used character: -r is similiar to -R Yes, `-r' would be a very poor choice for the reason you state. Agreed, but the precedent has already been set by touch(1) and truncate(1). If we're going to get it wrong some of the time, we might as well be consistent about it. When we don't look at the fact that neither touch nor truncate operate recursivly... what about changing touch and truncate to allow the proposed -c (or -i) too and mark -r as deprecated (if it isn't covered by a standard)? I'd really rather that we didn't change this at all, even if it seems inconsistent. Changing it would just lead to more confusion. I am also against adding new options to chown to copy ownership from existing files. Copy ownership: chown `stat -f%Su file1` file2 Copy group: chgrp `stat -f%Sg file1` file2 Copy both:chown `stat -f%Su:%Sg file1` file2 These could easily be made into shell functions or whatever... Admittedly it *is* creeping featurism, but there's already creeping featurism all over the place if you're going to be that strict about it. You might as well reimplement ls(1) as a shell script and remove 30 of its 33 documented options. I think -r is a specific case that happens to be useful and convenient for chown. Most of this discussion has been bogged down in the choice of option name, which is really silly. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Asking for tester (small patch to chown(8)/chgrp(1))
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:27:00 -0800 David Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm concerned about the used character: -r is similiar to -R Yes, `-r' would be a very poor choice for the reason you state. Agreed, but the precedent has already been set by touch(1) and truncate(1). If we're going to get it wrong some of the time, we might as well be consistent about it. When we don't look at the fact that neither touch nor truncate operate recursivly... what about changing touch and truncate to allow the proposed -c (or -i) too and mark -r as deprecated (if it isn't covered by a standard)? Bye, Alexander. -- Speak softly and carry a cellular phone. http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Asking for tester (small patch to chown(8)/chgrp(1))
Thus spake Alexander Leidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm concerned about the used character: -r is similiar to -R Yes, `-r' would be a very poor choice for the reason you state. Agreed, but the precedent has already been set by touch(1) and truncate(1). If we're going to get it wrong some of the time, we might as well be consistent about it. When we don't look at the fact that neither touch nor truncate operate recursivly... what about changing touch and truncate to allow the proposed -c (or -i) too and mark -r as deprecated (if it isn't covered by a standard)? Adding a uniform replacement to all three sounds good to me, as long as there isn't any standard involved. I'm a little bit suspicious given that Solaris touch(1) uses -r to mean the same thing we do. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Asking for tester (small patch to chown(8)/chgrp(1))
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:27:43PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote: On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:27:00 -0800 David Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm concerned about the used character: -r is similiar to -R Yes, `-r' would be a very poor choice for the reason you state. Agreed, but the precedent has already been set by touch(1) and truncate(1). If we're going to get it wrong some of the time, we might as well be consistent about it. When we don't look at the fact that neither touch nor truncate operate recursivly... what about changing touch and truncate to allow the proposed -c (or -i) too and mark -r as deprecated (if it isn't covered by a standard)? I'd really rather that we didn't change this at all, even if it seems inconsistent. Changing it would just lead to more confusion. I am also against adding new options to chown to copy ownership from existing files. Copy ownership: chown `stat -f%Su file1` file2 Copy group: chgrp `stat -f%Sg file1` file2 Copy both: chown `stat -f%Su:%Sg file1` file2 These could easily be made into shell functions or whatever... Tim To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Asking for tester (small patch to chown(8)/chgrp(1))
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 21:01:33 +0100 (CET) Oliver Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Leidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oliver Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The patch adds an option -r to chown(8) and chgrp(1), which does pretty much the same as the -r option of touch(1) and truncate(1). Basically, it let's you copy ownerships and group memberships from one file to another, which is useful in scripts. I'm concerned about the used character: -r is similiar to -R Why exactly is that cause for concern? Because cp uses -r in the same way chown uses -R. What character would you suggest instead? touch(1) and truncate(1) also use -r. But they don't work recursivly. What about -c (_c_opy)? Bye, Alexander. -- There's no place like ~ http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Asking for tester (small patch to chown(8)/chgrp(1))
On 19-Nov-2002 Alexander Leidinger wrote: On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 21:01:33 +0100 (CET) Oliver Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Alexander Leidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oliver Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The patch adds an option -r to chown(8) and chgrp(1), which does pretty much the same as the -r option of touch(1) and truncate(1). Basically, it let's you copy ownerships and group memberships from one file to another, which is useful in scripts. I'm concerned about the used character: -r is similiar to -R Why exactly is that cause for concern? Because cp uses -r in the same way chown uses -R. What character would you suggest instead? touch(1) and truncate(1) also use -r. But they don't work recursivly. What about -c (_c_opy)? or -i for inherit but I did always like green.. -- John Baldwin [EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ Power Users Use the Power to Serve! - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Asking for tester (small patch to chown(8)/chgrp(1))
Thus spake Garrett Wollman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I'm concerned about the used character: -r is similiar to -R Yes, `-r' would be a very poor choice for the reason you state. Agreed, but the precedent has already been set by touch(1) and truncate(1). If we're going to get it wrong some of the time, we might as well be consistent about it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Asking for tester (small patch to chown(8)/chgrp(1))
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 15:51:59 +0100, Alexander Leidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: I'm concerned about the used character: -r is similiar to -R Yes, `-r' would be a very poor choice for the reason you state. -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Asking for tester (small patch to chown(8)/chgrp(1))
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:29:20 +0100 (CET) Oliver Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The patch adds an option -r to chown(8) and chgrp(1), which does pretty much the same as the -r option of touch(1) and truncate(1). Basically, it let's you copy ownerships and group memberships from one file to another, which is useful in scripts. I'm concerned about the used character: -r is similiar to -R Bye, Alexander. -- One world, one web, one program -- Microsoft promotional ad Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer -- Adolf Hitler http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Asking for tester (small patch to chown(8)/chgrp(1))
Alexander Leidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oliver Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The patch adds an option -r to chown(8) and chgrp(1), which does pretty much the same as the -r option of touch(1) and truncate(1). Basically, it let's you copy ownerships and group memberships from one file to another, which is useful in scripts. I'm concerned about the used character: -r is similiar to -R Why exactly is that cause for concern? What character would you suggest instead? touch(1) and truncate(1) also use -r. Regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH Co KG, Oettingenstr. 2, 80538 München Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. All that we see or seem is just a dream within a dream (E. A. Poe) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Asking for tester (small patch to chown(8)/chgrp(1))
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:29:20PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote: I've submitted a small patch (bin/45333) for both -stable and -current, but I haven't been able to test it under -current (due to lack of a spare machine). Would someone please give it a try and let me know if it compiles and works? Seems to for me (today's -CURRENT). I did take the liberty of removing the extraneous space on (the new) line 151 (so its if lines up with those on lines 153 155), and of replacing the 'usage:' on (the new) line 305 (chgrp's usage() message, showing the second alternative invocation) with whitespace (to match the pattern for chown). (If someone wants my diff, please let me know. It's not sufficiently different from what Oliver put in his PR to warrant spamming -current, as far as I'm concerned.) The patch adds an option -r to chown(8) and chgrp(1), which does pretty much the same as the -r option of touch(1) and truncate(1). Basically, it let's you copy ownerships and group memberships from one file to another, which is useful in scripts. Makes sense. Only reservation I'd have -- and this may well be unfounded -- is to be sure we're not introducing gratutitous differences with respect to other implementations or to applicable standards. I have no problem with functional differences that don't break standards conformance (to the extent we claim it, anyway). Thanks! Hope this is useful. Cheers, david (links to my resume at http://www.catwhisker.org/~david) -- David H. Wolfskill [EMAIL PROTECTED] I have no confidence in results obtained through the use of Microsoft products. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Asking for tester (small patch to chown(8)/chgrp(1))
David Wolfskill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:29:20PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote: I've submitted a small patch (bin/45333) for both -stable and -current, but I haven't been able to test it under -current (due to lack of a spare machine). Would someone please give it a try and let me know if it compiles and works? Seems to for me (today's -CURRENT). Thanks! I did take the liberty of removing the extraneous space on (the new) line 151 (so its if lines up with those on lines 153 155), Oops, you're right, somehow there are spaces instead of tabs in that line (probably left over from copypaste). and of replacing the 'usage:' on (the new) line 305 (chgrp's usage() message, showing the second alternative invocation) with whitespace (to match the pattern for chown). Right again, I missed that. (If someone wants my diff, please let me know. It's not sufficiently different from what Oliver put in his PR to warrant spamming -current, as far as I'm concerned.) I've sent a small follow-up to the PR. The patch adds an option -r to chown(8) and chgrp(1), which does pretty much the same as the -r option of touch(1) and truncate(1). Basically, it let's you copy ownerships and group memberships from one file to another, which is useful in scripts. Makes sense. Only reservation I'd have -- and this may well be unfounded -- is to be sure we're not introducing gratutitous differences with respect to other implementations or to applicable standards. I have no problem with functional differences that don't break standards conformance (to the extent we claim it, anyway). I have checked a number of other operating systems including our brother and sister BSDs (Net- and Open-), Solaris and Tru64. There are no collisions nor similar functionality with different syntax. I also checked SUSv3 / POSIX, same result. On the other hand, GNU chown/chgrp (used under Linux) does have such functionality (what a surprise), _but_ only with a GNU-style long option: --reference=rfile. There is no short single-letter option for it. Clearly, I decided not to introduce GNU-style long option into our chown/chgrp. ;-) Hope this is useful. It is indeed, thanks! Regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH Co KG, Oettingenstr. 2, 80538 München Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way. All that we see or seem is just a dream within a dream (E. A. Poe) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
