Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 07/26/11 00:08, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> Do you feel like tracking down the point at which
>> the bug was introduced to mention it in NEWS?
>
> To be honest, I prefer thinking about the future
> to worrying about the past. Could we just omit
> that part of the announcement?
On 07/26/11 00:08, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Do you feel like tracking down the point at which
> the bug was introduced to mention it in NEWS?
To be honest, I prefer thinking about the future
to worrying about the past. Could we just omit
that part of the announcement? If someone cares
about the pa
Paul Eggert wrote:
> Thanks for the bug report. I committed this patch:
>
> Subject: [PATCH] cp: don't mishandle existing dir dest permissions (Bug#9170)
>
> * src/copy.c (copy_internal): If we don't create the directory,
> then we cannot have omitted permissions. Problem and trivial
> fix report
On 07/25/11 14:21, Eric Blake wrote:
> This violates the style guide in HACKING; it should either be:
True, but it's consistent with the style that's already used
in that file, near line 954. Perhaps the style should
be changed consistently, as a separate patch.
Hi,
I'm seeing the following strange behavior:
$ umask
0002
$ rm -rf /tmp/src /tmp/dst
$ mkdir -m775 /tmp/src /tmp/src/foo
$ mkdir -m700 /tmp/dst /tmp/dst/foo
$ ls -ld /tmp/dst/foo
drwx-- 2 eric eric 4096 Jul 25 13:40 /tmp/dst/foo
$ cp -r /tmp/src/. /tmp/dst/
$ ls -ld /tmp/dst/foo
drwx-w
