Update of bug #38474 (project findutils):
Status: Fixed => None
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #11:
I've applied Paul's updated patch. However, I think I agree with Eric on the
interpretation of the mode argument.
I propose not to reinstante -perm +MODE with different semantics in the
future.
The fact that this went wrong in the first place underlines the fact that more
regression test cases are needed for -perm.
I don't find the argument from compatibility with chmod very convincing since
the mode argument to chmod is understood to describe a modification to the
mode of an existing file. In the case of -perm, there is no existing file
mode.
Hence a description of how the mode should be interpreted that makes perfect
sense for chmod could still be confusing for find -perm.
This puts me in the uncomfortable position of wondering if mode_change is
really the best basis for find -perm; I'm not sure this is really the intended
use case for that function. But my first point above probably applies to
gnulib too; if I wanted mode_compile to reject mode strings of the form +MODE
I should probably have contributed a gnulib test case which enforced that.
Anyway I'm marking this bug as not-fixed because better tests are needed (in
findutils, at least).
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?38474>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
