A NOTE has been added to this issue. 
====================================================================== 
https://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:              2020-08-21 16:47 UTC
====================================================================== 
Summary:                    find(1): clarify whether -perm ops - and + should
follow chmod
====================================================================== 

---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
 (0004941) mohd_akram (reporter) - 2020-08-21 16:47
 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1392#c4941 
---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
I think the title I put should be tweaked - the issue is actually + and =
(- seems to behave the same due to the 000 starting point). I had posted
the = example in the filed GNU bug but forgot about it - hopefully this
link will work: https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?58654

On macOS:

$ chmod =w file
$ find file -perm =w
file

On Fedora:

$ chmod =w file
$ find file -perm =w

It seems that macOS does not ignore the mask even with =, mimicking chmod's
behavior. It feels like it would be simpler to defer to chmod in both
syntax and semantics because the "symbolic_mode" operand is fairly
complicated. This could entail removing the "without regard to the contents
of the file mode creation mask of the process" (letting "appropriate" do
all the heavy-lifting) and adding at the end that it is
"implementation-defined whether + and = ignore the file creation mode mask
when `who` is not specified". 

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                          
2020-08-19 11:32 geoffclare     Note Added: 0004930                          
2020-08-19 11:34 geoffclare     Note Edited: 0004930                         
2020-08-21 16:47 mohd_akram     Note Added: 0004941                          
======================================================================


  • [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
    • [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