[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug #38474] Unintended (?) behaviour change of -perm +mode predicate
From: |
James Youngman |
Subject: |
[bug #38474] Unintended (?) behaviour change of -perm +mode predicate |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Apr 2013 07:13:13 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.31 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/26.0.1410.63 Safari/537.31 |
Update of bug #38474 (project findutils):
Status: Fixed => None
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #11:
I've applied Paul's updated patch. However, I think I agree with Eric on the
interpretation of the mode argument.
I propose not to reinstante -perm +MODE with different semantics in the
future.
The fact that this went wrong in the first place underlines the fact that more
regression test cases are needed for -perm.
I don't find the argument from compatibility with chmod very convincing since
the mode argument to chmod is understood to describe a modification to the
mode of an existing file. In the case of -perm, there is no existing file
mode.
Hence a description of how the mode should be interpreted that makes perfect
sense for chmod could still be confusing for find -perm.
This puts me in the uncomfortable position of wondering if mode_change is
really the best basis for find -perm; I'm not sure this is really the intended
use case for that function. But my first point above probably applies to
gnulib too; if I wanted mode_compile to reject mode strings of the form +MODE
I should probably have contributed a gnulib test case which enforced that.
Anyway I'm marking this bug as not-fixed because better tests are needed (in
findutils, at least).
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?38474>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
- [bug #38474] Unintended (?) behaviour change of -perm +mode predicate, Andreas Metzler, 2013/04/07
- [bug #38474] Unintended (?) behaviour change of -perm +mode predicate, Andreas Metzler, 2013/04/07
- [bug #38474] Unintended (?) behaviour change of -perm +mode predicate, James Youngman, 2013/04/20
- [bug #38474] Unintended (?) behaviour change of -perm +mode predicate, Ludovic Brenta, 2013/04/20
- [bug #38474] Unintended (?) behaviour change of -perm +mode predicate, Eric Blake, 2013/04/20
- [bug #38474] Unintended (?) behaviour change of -perm +mode predicate, Eric Blake, 2013/04/20
- [bug #38474] Unintended (?) behaviour change of -perm +mode predicate, Paul Eggert, 2013/04/21
- [bug #38474] Unintended (?) behaviour change of -perm +mode predicate, James Youngman, 2013/04/22
- [bug #38474] Unintended (?) behaviour change of -perm +mode predicate, Eric Blake, 2013/04/22
- [bug #38474] Unintended (?) behaviour change of -perm +mode predicate, Paul Eggert, 2013/04/22
- [bug #38474] Unintended (?) behaviour change of -perm +mode predicate,
James Youngman <=
- [bug #38474] Unintended (?) behaviour change of -perm +mode predicate, Paul Eggert, 2013/04/24