drew Cutler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: chown broken??
> >
> >
> > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:12:17PM +0100, Mark wrote:
> > >
> > > > I must say
- Original Message -
From: "Gary W. Swearingen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: chown broken??
> Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >
Thus spake Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Ceri Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Andrew Cutler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Frida
On 2002-12-20 15:24, Dan Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the last episode (Dec 20), Giorgos Keramidas said:
> > On 2002-12-20 14:00, Dan Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > In the last episode (Dec 20), Kurt Bigler said:
> > > > I don't know zsh, but if it has a setting that prevents wil
Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, "the directories named on the command line" within the CURRENT
> directory. Technically, "." and ".." are entries within the current
> directory (try: "od -c ."), and they have inode numbers too. But that does
> not deter me from deeming it a bit counter-int
In the last episode (Dec 20), Giorgos Keramidas said:
> On 2002-12-20 14:00, Dan Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In the last episode (Dec 20), Kurt Bigler said:
> > > I don't know zsh, but if it has a setting that prevents wildcard
> > > expansion from including .. as a match for .* that stri
On 2002-12-20 14:00, Dan Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the last episode (Dec 20), Kurt Bigler said:
> > I don't know zsh, but if it has a setting that prevents wildcard
> > expansion from including .. as a match for .* that strikes me as an
> > all-around good thing.
>
> zsh's rules are th
In the last episode (Dec 20), Kurt Bigler said:
> I don't know zsh, but if it has a setting that prevents wildcard
> expansion from including .. as a match for .* that strikes me as an
> all-around good thing.
zsh's rules are that no filename generation pattern ever matches the
files `.' or `..'.
on 12/20/02 7:39 AM, Fernando Gleiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
>
>> apart from what others said about wildcard substitution:
>>
>> roman@freepuppy /usr 1005:1 > ls -l .*
>> zsh: no matches found: .*
>> roman@freepuppy /usr 1006:1 >
>>
>> IOW, the
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
>
> any problem with this?
>
> cd ..
> chmod -R .
>
> zsh's behavior actually allows you to chmod only dotfils/dotdirs:
>
> roman@freepuppy ~/tmp 1013:0 > echo .*
> .htaccess .mail .vim
> roman@freepuppy ~/tmp 1014:0 >
Becaus
please don't cc me, I'll pick up your reply from the list.
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-20 12:39:31 -0300:
> On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
>
> > apart from what others said about wildcard substitution:
> >
> > roman@freepuppy /usr 1005:1 > ls -l .*
> > zsh: no match
On Fri, 20 Dec 2002, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> apart from what others said about wildcard substitution:
>
> roman@freepuppy /usr 1005:1 > ls -l .*
> zsh: no matches found: .*
> roman@freepuppy /usr 1006:1 >
>
> IOW, the behavior is actually shell- (and shell configuration-)
>
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-21 00:22:32 +1100:
> I just hosed one of my boxes by recursively setting all my file
> permissions incorrectly:
>
> $ su
> $ cd /data
> $ chown -R andrew:wheel *
> $ chown -R andrew:wheel .*
apart from what others said about wi
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:48:41PM +0100, Mark wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:12:17PM +0100, Mark wrote:
> >
> > > I must say, though, that while I understand this behaviour, one can
> > > argue on what exactly "recursive" is to mean here. Intuitively,
> > > the definition of "the current
- Original Message -
From: "Ceri Davies" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Andrew Cutler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: chown broken??
> On F
On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:12:17PM +0100, Mark wrote:
>
> I must say, though, that while I understand this behaviour, one can argue on
> what exactly "recursive" is to mean here. Intuitively, the definition of
> "the current sub-directory and all sub-directories below the current
> directory (and
- Original Message -
From: "Andrew Cutler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 2:22 PM
Subject: chown broken??
> Hello
>
>
>
> I just hosed one of my boxes by recursively setting all my
> file permissions in
On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 12:59:24AM +1100, Andrew Cutler wrote:
> Thanks for everyone's quick responses. I'm not going to delve any deeper
> as to why chown, chmod etc match .. for .* when other commands do not.
> I'm sure this is ground that has been covered many times before. And I'm
> sure its th
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2002-12-21 00:59:24 +1100:
> So without further embarrassment, does anyone have any idea on what is
> the quickest and easiest way to correct the file ownership issues that
> I'm currently experiencing ?
restore from backup. if you don't backup, then reinstall.
--
If y
Thanks for everyone's quick responses. I'm not going to delve any deeper
as to why chown, chmod etc match .. for .* when other commands do not.
I'm sure this is ground that has been covered many times before. And I'm
sure its the sort of mistake that you only make once. (In fact now that
I think ab
On 21 Dec 2002, Andrew Cutler wrote:
> I realise that now, but why does chown not ignore the match since most
> other commands simply return?
> . is a directory -- ignored
> .. is a directory -- ignored
>
> This inconsistency is not logical.
It is not inconsistenct. chown can oper
Thus spake Andrew Cutler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I realise that now, but why does chown not ignore the match since most
> other commands simply return?
> . is a directory -- ignored
> .. is a directory -- ignored
>
> This inconsistency is not logical.
rm makes a special case for '.
On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 12:36:36AM +1100, Andrew Cutler wrote:
> I realise that now, but why does chown not ignore the match since most
> other commands simply return?
> . is a directory -- ignored
> .. is a directory -- ignored
>
> This inconsistency is not logical.
>
It is not i
I realise that now, but why does chown not ignore the match since most
other commands simply return?
. is a directory -- ignored
.. is a directory -- ignored
This inconsistency is not logical.
On Sat, 2002-12-21 at 00:26, Ceri Davies wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 12:22:32AM +11
Hi,
On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 12:22:32AM +1100, Andrew Cutler wrote:
> I just hosed one of my boxes by recursively setting all my file
> permissions incorrectly:
>
> $ su
> $ cd /data
> $ chown -R andrew:wheel *
This is all ok.
> $ chown -R andrew:wheel .*
This isn'
On Sat, Dec 21, 2002 at 12:22:32AM +1100, Andrew Cutler wrote:
> Hello
>
>
>
> I just hosed one of my boxes by recursively setting all my file
> permissions incorrectly:
>
> $ su
> $ cd /data
> $ chown -R andrew:wheel *
> $ chown -R andrew:wheel .*
That mat
Hello
I just hosed one of my boxes by recursively setting all my file
permissions incorrectly:
$ su
$ cd /data
$ chown -R andrew:wheel *
$ chown -R andrew:wheel .*
For some reason the last command was interpreted as:
$ chown -R andrew:wheel /*
27 matches
Mail list logo
