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/