[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Bug#329358: [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25
From: |
Ph. Marek |
Subject: |
Re: Bug#329358: [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25 |
Date: |
Fri, 7 Oct 2005 08:10:45 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.8.2 |
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:
-perm mode
File's permission bits are exactly mode (octal or
symbolic). Since an exact match is required, if you
want to use this form for symbolic modes, you may
have to specify a rather complex mode string. For
example '-perm g=w' will only match files which have
mode 0020 (that is, ones for which group write per-
mission is the only permission set). It is more
likely that you will want to use the '+' or '-'
forms, for example '-perm -g=w', which matches any
file with group write permission. See the EXAMPLES
section for some illustrative examples.
-perm -mode
All of the permission bits mode are set for the file.
Symbolic modes are accepted in this form, and this is
usually the way in which would want to use them. You
must specify 'u', 'g' or 'o' if you use a symbolic
mode. See the EXAMPLES section for some illustra-
tive examples.
-perm +mode
Any of the permission bits mode are set for the file.
Symbolic modes are accepted in this form. You must
specify 'u', 'g' or 'o' if you use a symbolic mode.
See the EXAMPLES section for some illustrative exam-
ples.
And at least for my limited (non-native) understanding of english this ain't
the same as the (not clearly written) POSIX-standard.
So maybe it's not find, but it's man-page which should be changed? Perhaps
having a few examples and a better explanation?
Thank you!
Regards,
Phil
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, (continued)
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Eric Blake, 2005/10/06
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Eric Blake, 2005/10/06
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Eric Blake, 2005/10/06
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, James Youngman, 2005/10/08
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Andreas Metzler, 2005/10/08
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Eric Blake, 2005/10/08
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Andreas Metzler, 2005/10/09
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Eric Blake, 2005/10/09
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Andreas Metzler, 2005/10/15
- [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Andreas Metzler, 2005/10/15
- Re: Bug#329358: [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25,
Ph. Marek <=
- Re: Bug#329358: [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Eric Blake, 2005/10/07
- Re: Bug#329358: [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, James Youngman, 2005/10/07
- Re: Bug#329358: [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, Eric Blake, 2005/10/10
- Re: Bug#329358: [bug #14619] find -perm +... broken in 4.2.25, James Youngman, 2005/10/10