Re: how to find executable files
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Erik Trulsson wrote: On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 07:13:51PM -0400, Peter Leftwich wrote: Two questions, first is why doesn't this work, or is there a flag I can use with ls? # find . -type f -perm +x find: -perm: x: illegal mode string # find . -type f -perm +x -print find: -perm: x: illegal mode string For -perm you first use + or - and then the mode. The mode is specified as for chmod, i.e. things like 'u+x' for user executable, 'g-w' for non-groupwritavle or '+x' for executable by somebody. (Numeric modes also work.) Erg, I knew that! :-/ It's just that I view the whole u+x scheme as the easy way and that real Unix junkies roll up their sleeves and use numeric perm's such as 0777 and 644 :-) So in your case you would get: find . -type f -perm '++x' (The single quotes around ++x seem to be necessary for me. Probably my shell trying to interpret ++ in some way...) Noted. Thanks for the tip! Question II: Is find always recursive (through subdirectories) or can this be limited to x levels down? Thanks. find . -maxdepth 4 (Or some other number instead of 4. This, along with everything else, is fairly clearly documented in the manpage for find(1).) The manpage (surprise!) is severely lacking and I overlooked it: -maxdepth n True if the depth of the current file into the tree is less than or equal to n. -mindepth n True if the depth of the current file into the tree is greater than or equal to n. That is, it wouldn't kill the author to mention some keyword or buzzword such as recurse or subdirectories... Am I alone on this? Insert your favourite quote here. Age is a feeling, not a number! Erik Trulsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Peter Leftwich President Founder Video2Video Services Box 13692, La Jolla, CA, 92039 USA +1-413-403-9555 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Re: how to find executable files
Peter Leftwich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Erg, I knew that! :-/ It's just that I view the whole u+x scheme as the easy way and that real Unix junkies roll up their sleeves and use numeric perm's such as 0777 and 644 :-) Assuming that you're also referring to the scheme's use in chmod, note that it can do things the numeric scheme can't do, such as going thru a dir tree copying the user write bit to the other write bit. That is, it wouldn't kill the author to mention some keyword or buzzword such as recurse or subdirectories... Am I alone on this? Well, I think most people try not to bother others with such doc problems outside of the Problem Report mechanism, where they won't be immediately forgotten and have some hope of being of benefit to FreeBSD. If you don't file a PR, the problem is unlikely to get fixed, leaving the problem for more people to encounter. And often, with docs, the person who thinks there is a problem is in the best position to propose a fix. Of course, if your fix proposal leaves hard work for others to do, it's also unlikely to be fixed, so you have to use judgement, but there are some people, like Giorgos, who spend some of their time on such work to improve FreeBSD. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
how to find executable files
Two questions, first is why doesn't this work, or is there a flag I can use with ls? # find . -type f -perm +x find: -perm: x: illegal mode string # find . -type f -perm +x -print find: -perm: x: illegal mode string Question II: Is find always recursive (through subdirectories) or can this be limited to x levels down? Thanks. -- Peter Leftwich President Founder Video2Video Services Box 13692, La Jolla, CA, 92039 USA +1-413-403-9555 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
