On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 11:47:03AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > Javier Fern�ndez-Sanguino Pe�a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 09:17:01PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > > > > Good, however, it only acknowledges the -e proposed documentation change. > > There were also -w and -x ammendments in my patch... Are you going to > > include them? > > -e, -w, and -x are all covered by the patch, are they not? It says: > > "Except for -h and -L, all FILE-related tests dereference symbolic links." > > This wording covers -e, -w, -x, -r, -f, etc., etc.
I was not talking about that ambiguity, but rather about this: \fB\-w\fR FILE -FILE exists and is writable +FILE exists and is writable. True indicates only that the write flag is on. +The file is not writable on a read-only file system even if this +test indicates true .TP \fB\-x\fR FILE -FILE exists and is executable +FILE exists and is executable. True indicates only that the execute flag +is on. If file is a directory, true indicates that file can be searched . That's what on OpenBSD's manpage and I think it could be added too. Regards Javier
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
