On 2005-09-22 at 20:01:14 Andreas Metzler wrote: > No, it has to be something in the 4.2.24 --> 4.2.25 changes.
Hm, I've looked into this somewhat more, and weirdly enough, 4.2.24 doesn't work properly either (at least for me): $ ls -al total 912 drwxrwxr-x 2 dim dim 4096 2005-09-23 15:01:59 ./ drwxrwxr-x 7 dim dim 4096 2005-09-23 15:01:27 ../ -rw-rw-r-- 1 dim dim 151646 2005-03-20 11:02:10 findutils_4.1.20-6_i386.deb -rw-r--r-- 1 dim dim 370796 2005-09-23 14:58:02 findutils_4.2.24-1_i386.deb -rw-r--r-- 1 dim dim 382656 2005-09-23 14:59:22 findutils_4.2.25-1_i386.deb $ find --version GNU find version 4.1.20 $ find . -perm +g+w . /findutils_4.1.20-6_i386.deb $ find . -perm /g+w find: invalid mode `/g+w' $ This is on Sarge, where 4.1.20 is still the default. It seems to work correctly, although the /perm syntax is not yet supported. Then I built 4.2.24-1 from the dsc file: $ find --version GNU find version 4.2.24 Features enabled: D_TYPE O_NOFOLLOW(enabled) LEAF_OPTIMISATION $ find . -perm +g+w . ./findutils_4.2.24-1_i386.deb ./findutils_4.2.25-1_i386.deb ./findutils_4.1.20-6_i386.deb $ find . -perm /g+w $ So with 4.2.24, the -perm +g+w output is clearly incorrect, since only '.' and 'findutils_4.1.20-6_i386.deb' should be found. And with -perm /g+w it even finds NOTHING. :( Then I built 4.2.25-1: $ find --version GNU find version 4.2.25 Features enabled: D_TYPE O_NOFOLLOW(enabled) LEAF_OPTIMISATION $ find . -perm +g+w $ find . -perm /g+w . ./findutils_4.1.20-6_i386.deb So with 4.2.25, /g+w seems to work again, but +g+w is indeed broken, or maybe it has been broken (at least for some forms of usage) for a longer time already. I now suspect this diff, "Fixed bug which caused find -perm /440 to be treated the same as find -perm 440": http://savannah.gnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/findutils/findutils/find/parser.c.diff?r1=1.77&r2=1.78 But if I revert this patch, I simply get the other faulty behaviour of 4.2.24. So it doesn't really solve anything. It seems the change I mentioned earlier still has to do with this, as the "+g+w" seems to be parsed as a POSIX compliant exact mode spec (so it's using PERM_EXACT instead of PERM_ANY).
pgpLMU6YxEflp.pgp
Description: PGP signature
