[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric Blake) writes: > Other questions, though - with our extension options, should we interpret > `chmod -w a+x foo' the same as `chmod -- -w ./a+x ./foo' or like > `chmod -- -w,a+x ./foo'?
It's been the former for a while; I guess that's OK. > POSIX allows modes that look like long options - can the code be > made to treat `chmod --w foo' the same as it would `chmod -w foo' by > seeing if unrecognized long options match a valid mode string? Not in general, because plain "--" is a valid mode option, but POSIX specifies a different meaning for "--". I don't think it's worth worrying much about other leading-"--" forms, as nobody is likely to use them (unlike "-w", say). > Speaking of which, the `chmod --help' wording could be improved (perhaps > with examples); it does not mention -w, -r, etc. as being extension options, I doubt whether this level of detail needs to be in the usage; usage is just meant to be a brief reminder, not a formal spec. > and wrongly states that "one or more of the letters ugoa" is required as who, > and "one or more of the letters rwxXstugo" is required as perm/permcopy. Good point. That's fixed in CVS. It now says: Each MODE is of the form `[ugoa]*([-+=]([rwxXst]*|[ugo]))+'. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
