Update of bug #61501 (project findutils):
Status: None => Need Info
Assigned to: None => berny
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #1:
Thanks for the report, but what is exactly wrong with those entries?
For a better comparison, here's the complete reproducer.
The 'find' command line prints out 4 lines per item:
1. the full argument (%p),
2. the working directory for -execdir,
3. the replacement value for the argument '{}' for -execdir, and
4. the replacement value for the argument '{}' for -exec.
$ mkdir /foo && cd /foo && touch apple banana
$ find . -printf '1:%p\n' -execdir pwd ';' -execdir printf '2:%s\n' '{}' ';'
-exec printf '3:%s\n\n' '{}' ';'
1:.
/foo
2:./.
3:.
1:./banana
/foo
2:./banana
3:./banana
1:./apple
/foo
2:./apple
3:./apple
$ find /foo -printf '1:%p\n' -execdir pwd ';' -execdir printf '2:%s\n' '{}'
';' -exec printf '3:%s\n\n' '{}' ';'
1:/foo
/
2:./foo
3:/foo
1:/foo/banana
/foo
2:./banana
3:/foo/banana
1:/foo/apple
/foo
2:./apple
3:/foo/apple
In the first find(1) invocation, it's maybe debatable whether '.' or './.'
is better, still both are correct and properly resolve to the current
directory.
The second find(1) invocation shows that the output of './foo' is also
correct,
as the working directory is '/'.
Would you please explain what is the problem with that behavior?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?61501>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via Savannah
https://savannah.gnu.org/
