On 2007-08-21 11:12:11 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > Besides being wrong about chown & chgrp in point 3?
I'm not wrong: courge:~> ll file link -rw-r--r-- 1 vlefevre lip 0 2007-08-21 18:24:34 file lrwxrwxrwx 1 vlefevre lip 4 2007-08-21 18:24:42 link -> file courge:~> chgrp arenaire link courge:~> ll file link -rw-r--r-- 1 vlefevre lip 0 2007-08-21 18:24:34 file lrwxrwxrwx 1 vlefevre arenaire 4 2007-08-21 18:24:42 link -> file > You're arguing for enforcing a consistency that doesn't exist. No > matter how strongly you argue, you're not going to change that fact. What fact? > At this point I've quite frankly even lost track of what you're > arguing *for*; suffice it to say that there is no interface > available for changing the time on a symlink, I agree. But the touch(1) man page does not say that there is no interface available for changing the time on a symlink. > that the behavior of touch is standardized by posix, and that the > handling of symlinks is *also* standardized by posix. Even if this is standardized by POSIX, the behavior should be documented. > (Unless otherwise specified, the target of the symlink is operated > upon, rather than the symlink itself.) Where is this documented? -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/> 100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/> Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / Arenaire project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
