Update of bug #38474 (project findutils): Status: Fixed => None
_______________________________________________________ Follow-up Comment #11: I've applied Paul's updated patch. However, I think I agree with Eric on the interpretation of the mode argument. I propose not to reinstante -perm +MODE with different semantics in the future. The fact that this went wrong in the first place underlines the fact that more regression test cases are needed for -perm. I don't find the argument from compatibility with chmod very convincing since the mode argument to chmod is understood to describe a modification to the mode of an existing file. In the case of -perm, there is no existing file mode. Hence a description of how the mode should be interpreted that makes perfect sense for chmod could still be confusing for find -perm. This puts me in the uncomfortable position of wondering if mode_change is really the best basis for find -perm; I'm not sure this is really the intended use case for that function. But my first point above probably applies to gnulib too; if I wanted mode_compile to reject mode strings of the form +MODE I should probably have contributed a gnulib test case which enforced that. Anyway I'm marking this bug as not-fixed because better tests are needed (in findutils, at least). _______________________________________________________ Reply to this item at: <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?38474> _______________________________________________ Message sent via/by Savannah http://savannah.gnu.org/