Hi Stephane, We missed the point you raised about the example when we resolved this issue during our 2023-11-20 conference call. Since those changes have already been applied to Issue 8 draft 4 I will file a new bug to address this point in a later draft.
Thank you for pointing that we missed this. Sincerely, Don > On Dec 14, 2023, at 10:54 AM, Stephane Chazelas via austin-group-l at The > Open Group <[email protected]> wrote: > > 2023-11-20 17:30:32 +0000, Austin Group Bug Tracker via austin-group-l at The > Open Group: > [...] >> On page 2920 line 97596 section find (-newer), change:<blockquote>The >> primary shall evaluate as true if the modification time of the current file >> is more recent than the modification time of the file named by the pathname >> <i>file</i>.</blockquote>to:<blockquote>The primary shall evaluate as true >> if the modification time of the current file is more recent than the >> modification time of the file named by the pathname <i>file</i>. If >> <i>file</i> names a symbolic link, the modification time used shall be that >> of the file referenced by the symbolic link if either the <b>-H</b> or >> <b>-L</b> is specified; if neither <b>-H</b> nor <b>-L</b> is specified, it >> is unspecified whether the modification time is that of the symbolic link >> itself or of the file referenced by the symbolic link. In either case, if >> the referenced file does not exist, the modification time used shall be >> that of the link itself. If <i>file</i> is a relative pathname, it shall be >> resolved relative to the current working directory that was inherited by >> <i>find</i> when it was invoked.</blockquote> > [...] > > Thanks, looks good. > > What about the example: > >> - fix the example at line 97747 to use -H, and maybe add a >> "provided both file1 and file2 are accessible". > > ? > > -- > Stephane >
