A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1392 
====================================================================== 
Reported By:                mohd_akram
Assigned To:                
====================================================================== 
Project:                    1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2
Issue ID:                   1392
Category:                   Shell and Utilities
Type:                       Clarification Requested
Severity:                   Editorial
Priority:                   normal
Status:                     New
Name:                       Mohamed Akram 
Organization:                
User Reference:              
Section:                    find 
Page Number:                2797 
Line Number:                91951-91956 
Interp Status:              --- 
Final Accepted Text:         
====================================================================== 
Date Submitted:             2020-08-14 12:55 UTC
Last Modified:              2020-08-19 10:32 UTC
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    find(1): clarify whether -perm ops - and + should
follow chmod
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0004929) joerg (reporter) - 2020-08-19 10:32
 https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1392#c4929 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Given that the find man page points to chmod(1) and that it explicitly
mentions '=' to differ somehow from '+', I see this as a hint that -perm
must behave similar to chmod(1) which includes the file creation mask.

BTW: When I wrote my parser in July 2004 for libfind, I did not check
existing find implementations but only the POSIX standard. The background
for writing libfindhas been the missing usability of gfind and find from
Solaris at that time. So the behavior of libfind is just a consequence of
following the standard and what is expected for orthogonal behavior.

Regardless of the way you interpret this, we seem to basically agree that
the libfind/BSD behavior is the right way to go for the future.

P.S. The Solaris implementation behaves the same as gfind for this detail,
but I am happy to change this. 

Issue History 
Date Modified    Username       Field                    Change               
====================================================================== 
2020-08-14 12:55 mohd_akram     New Issue                                    
2020-08-14 12:55 mohd_akram     Name                      => Mohamed Akram   
2020-08-14 12:55 mohd_akram     Section                   => find            
2020-08-14 12:55 mohd_akram     Page Number               => 2797            
2020-08-14 12:55 mohd_akram     Line Number               => 91951-91956     
2020-08-15 11:15 joerg          Note Added: 0004925                          
2020-08-16 21:16 mohd_akram     Issue Monitored: mohd_akram                    
2020-08-19 09:22 geoffclare     Note Added: 0004926                          
2020-08-19 10:32 joerg          Note Added: 0004929                          
======================================================================


  • [1003.1(2016... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003.1... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003.1... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
      • Re:... Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group
        • ... Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group
          • ... Joerg Schilling via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003.1... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003.1... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003.1... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group
    • [1003.1... Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The Open Group

Reply via email to