Re: [Patch] mode_* when compiling findutils with fresh gnulib

Op Tue, 24 May 2005 03:49:56 +0200 (MET DST) schreef ik in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Disregard, please. I composed this message before receiving <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. L8r, Buzz. -- ) | | ---/ ---/ Yes, this | This message consists of true | I do not -- | | // really is | and false bi

Re: [Patch] mode_* when compiling findutils with fresh gnulib

Op Mon, 23 May 2005 01:12:58 -0700 schreef Paul Eggert in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: : [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Youngman) writes: : : > Gnulib guys, what's the significance of the changes made to : > modechange.c? How should callers who previously used MODE_MASK_PLUS : > modify their code to get the sa

findutils POSIX incompatiblity with "find . -perm ++w -print"

This is a followup to my bug report of yesterday about findutils and recent gnulib versions. The import-gnulib.sh patch of yesterday's message is still valid, but the patch proposed below supersedes the parser.c change. GNU find has an extension "-perm +MODE" that is true if any of the bits of MO

Re: [Patch] mode_* when compiling findutils with fresh gnulib

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Youngman) writes: > Gnulib guys, what's the significance of the changes made to > modechange.c? How should callers who previously used MODE_MASK_PLUS > modify their code to get the same behaviour? We couldn't find any programs that set some of the MODE_MASK bits but not