[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: chown, cpio: proposed change for userspec handling of USER:
From: |
Bob Proulx |
Subject: |
Re: chown, cpio: proposed change for userspec handling of USER: |
Date: |
Wed, 2 Dec 2009 19:25:21 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) |
Jim Meyering wrote:
> While writing a few tests for userspec (below), I was surprised to
> re-learn that chown USER_NAME: has a special meaning. It is a
> shorthand for chown USER_NAME:+$(id -g USER_NAME) ...
> I had expected it to be equivalent to this:
> chown USER_NAME ...
I use it quite often. It is a convenient shorthand.
> Since the above behavior is not specified by POSIX, and
> is IMHO, counter-intuitive, I propose to change it. However,
> it is documented both in coreutils and in cpio's manuals.
I disagree about it not being intuitive. I think it is a very
intuitive use of a default value for the group when the group is not
specified.
> Here's the patch, followed by the coreutils part,
> but I suppose I can't really apply them as-is.
> Rather, I may make "chown USER_NAME: ..." warn-for-now yet
> continue to work and "chown NUMERIC: ..." work like "chown NUMERIC ...".
> Then, in say two years, I'd make the actual change.
I would prefer not to remove this very useful feature. Of course I
find it useful because I use it quite often. But I understand that if
it isn't standard then we should remove it from the tool.
Bob
- chown, cpio: proposed change for userspec handling of USER:, Jim Meyering, 2009/12/02
- Re: chown, cpio: proposed change for userspec handling of USER:, Andreas Schwab, 2009/12/02
- Re: chown, cpio: proposed change for userspec handling of USER:, Paul Eggert, 2009/12/02
- Re: chown, cpio: proposed change for userspec handling of USER:, Brian K. White, 2009/12/02
- Re: chown, cpio: proposed change for userspec handling of USER:,
Bob Proulx <=
- Re: chown, cpio: proposed change for userspec handling of USER:, Sergey Poznyakoff, 2009/12/03