On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 04:46, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 10:04:01AM +, Adam wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 October 2003 08:00, Lukas Ruf wrote:
> > > find -type f | xargs chmod 0644
> >
> > I would have come up with
> >
> > find PATH -type f -exec chmod 0644 '{}' ';'
> >
> > I
On Wednesday 08 October 2003 12:10, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 10:04:01AM +, Adam wrote:
>> On Wednesday 08 October 2003 08:00, Lukas Ruf wrote:
(1)
>> > find -type f | xargs chmod 0644
>>
>> I would have come up with
>>
(2)
>> find PATH -type f -exec chmod 0644 '{}' ';
On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 10:04:01AM +, Adam wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 October 2003 08:00, Lukas Ruf wrote:
> > > find -type f | xargs chmod 0644
> >
> > I would have come up with
> >
> > find PATH -type f -exec chmod 0644 '{}' ';'
> >
> > Is the ver
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 09:42:55PM +1000, Cameron Hutchison wrote:
> Once upon a time Colin Watson said...
> > The downside is that you can only use xargs this way for programs that
> > let you specify an arbitrary number of filenames lasting up to the end
> > of the command line.
>
> xargs -n 1
Once upon a time Colin Watson said...
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 10:04:01AM +, Adam wrote:
> > On Wednesday 08 October 2003 08:00, Lukas Ruf wrote:
> > > find -type f | xargs chmod 0644
> >
> > I would have come up with
> >
> > find PATH -type f -exec chmod 0644 '{}' ';'
> >
> > Is the versi
On Wed, Oct 08, 2003 at 10:04:01AM +, Adam wrote:
> On Wednesday 08 October 2003 08:00, Lukas Ruf wrote:
> > find -type f | xargs chmod 0644
>
> I would have come up with
>
> find PATH -type f -exec chmod 0644 '{}' ';'
>
> Is the version with xargs better, and how?
The version with xargs i
> Adam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-08 12:28]:
>
> On Wednesday 08 October 2003 08:00, Lukas Ruf wrote:
>
> >
> > find -type f | xargs chmod 0644
>
> I would have come up with
>
> find PATH -type f -exec chmod 0644 '{}' ';'
>
> Is the version with xargs better, and how?
>
the reason I usual
> John Habermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-08 08:52]:
>
> Hi
>
> I am just wondering if there is anything out there that lets you
> change permissions of all files in a directory tree but not the
> directories. I need the directories to stay executable but want to
> set the files to be read onl
Hi
I am just wondering if there is anything out there that lets you change permissions of
all files in a directory tree but not the directories. I need the directories to stay
executable but want to set the files to be read only.
Thanks for any for any pointers
John
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, emai
9 matches
Mail list logo