Follow-up Comment #10, bug #14619 (project findutils):
You had a slight typo in comment #9 - with umask 0022, the mode "+r"
evaluates as 0200 (or perhaps you meant umask 0002, to get 0220), from the
point of view of chmod. But your doc patch looked nice.
See my note 1 at the end of comment #3. POSIX has an ambiguity on whether
the mode bits of -perm obey umask on + and - and ignore it on =, or whether
it ignores umask for all three of +, -, and =. I believe findutils' current
behavior of ignoring umask in all three cases is probably okay, but it is
probably worth a question to the austin group to see if our interpretation is
correct. I note also that in Solaris 8, find obeyed the umask (although there
were other places where -perm was non-POSIX compliant, so it is not really the
best comparison point). I don't have access to Solaris 10 or any other
implementation of find that claims to be compliant, for comparison purposes.
Also, I realized that I was slightly mistaken in comment #3 - "x" is not a
valid mode ('x' is only valid when proceeded with an op), so -perm +x in the
older versions of find should not have worked, and -perm /x does not work
now. However, if it is desired, find could treat mode "x" as an extension to
POSIX, as equivalent to "+x", so that -perm /x could be shorthand for -perm
/+x.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?func=detailitem&item_id=14619>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
