Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > touch: setting times of `blah/cd': Permission denied > > > though blah/cd doesn't exist. That's inconsistent. > > > > Permission denied is not the same as not creating non-existing files. > > If the permission is denied th

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:33:36PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2007-08-21 14:52:02 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: stat is anything-goes, since it isn't standardized. I'd like to see that change in the next posix cycle, since it's so useful. But shouldn't you take consistency (with other comm

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

On 2007-08-21 15:19:28 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:59:28PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> On 2007-08-21 13:23:53 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: >>> No. It's fundamental to how unix systems behave, and is not useful to >>> document on every man page. >> >> If it's so fund

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

On 2007-08-21 13:01:21 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > Yes, this is *exactly* what I mean: 'touch' is part of the few > > commands that operate on the inode, > > Ah, here is the basis of the disagreement! There is no lutimes(2) > call and touch cannot use it and cannot opera

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

On 2007-08-21 14:52:02 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:43:15PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> On 2007-08-21 13:16:34 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: >>> What version of chgrp are you using? >> >> Grrr... that's a zsh builtin. > > You should file a bug, it's a posix compliance

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:59:28PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2007-08-21 13:23:53 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: No. It's fundamental to how unix systems behave, and is not useful to document on every man page. If it's so fundamental, why don't the ls and stat command dereference symlinks b

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

On 2007-08-21 13:23:53 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:32:53PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> On 2007-08-21 11:12:11 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: >>> You're arguing for enforcing a consistency that doesn't exist. No >>> matter how strongly you argue, you're not going to ch

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > Touch simply open()s the file or calls utime{,s}() on the file. Note the "or" there. It does one OR the other. It does not do both. > I don't understand. The utime(2) man page says: > > int utime(const char *filename, const struct utimbuf *buf

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:43:15PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2007-08-21 13:16:34 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: What version of chgrp are you using? Grrr... that's a zsh builtin. You should file a bug, it's a posix compliance issue. :-) And strangely, the stat zsh builtin dereferences

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

On 2007-08-21 13:16:34 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > What version of chgrp are you using? Grrr... that's a zsh builtin. And strangely, the stat zsh builtin dereferences symbolic links (contrary to the stat command from the coreutils). -- Vincent Lefèvre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Web:

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:32:53PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2007-08-21 11:12:11 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: You're arguing for enforcing a consistency that doesn't exist. No matter how strongly you argue, you're not going to change that fact. What fact? That your starting premise is

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 06:32:53PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2007-08-21 11:12:11 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: Besides being wrong about chown & chgrp in point 3? I'm not wrong: courge:~> ll file link -rw-r--r-- 1 vlefevre lip 0 2007-08-21 18:24:34 file lrwxrwxrwx 1 vlefevre lip 4 2007-0

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

On 2007-08-21 11:12:11 -0400, Michael Stone wrote: > Besides being wrong about chown & chgrp in point 3? I'm not wrong: courge:~> ll file link -rw-r--r-- 1 vlefevre lip 0 2007-08-21 18:24:34 file lrwxrwxrwx 1 vlefevre lip 4 2007-08-21 18:24:42 link -> file courge:~> chgrp arenaire link courge:~>

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:36:45AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: No. I can see 3 classes of commands that operate on files/inodes (I don't include those that operate on directory entries such as 'rm', though their argument are filenames): 1. Those that follow symbolic links because it would make

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

On 2007-08-20 23:57:45 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > Bob Proulx wrote: > > > The touch command follows symlinks because generally everything > > > follows symlinks. The commands that do not follow symlinks are the > > > exceptions to that rule. > > > > I'd say this is the

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=438671 Jim Meyering wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > > The 'touch' documentation (info manual, man page and 'touch --help' > > > output) needs to be clarified. > > > ... > > I could suggest the following: > > > >to

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Bob Proulx wrote: > > Symlinks create a fundamental operating interface between all > > programs and the filesystem. They permeate everything that > > operates on files in a fundamental way. Because they are a very > > low level interface I don't believe it is possible no

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Proulx) wrote: >> In the second sentence, 'FILE' refers to a string ('-' being >> different from './-' for instance). I suggest saying something >> like: >> >> An operand of `-' ... >> >> or >> >> A FILE string of `-' ... > > I could suggest the following: > >tou

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

On 2007-08-19 13:10:15 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote: > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > The 'touch' documentation (info manual, man page and 'touch --help' > > output) needs to be clarified. > > > > 1. First, 'touch' follows symbolic links, and the documentation should > > say that, because this is far from

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

Vincent Lefevre wrote: > The 'touch' documentation (info manual, man page and 'touch --help' > output) needs to be clarified. > > 1. First, 'touch' follows symbolic links, and the documentation should > say that, because this is far from being clear (e.g. 'rm' and 'ls' > don't follow symbolic link

Bug#438671: coreutils: 'touch' documentation needs to be clarified

Package: coreutils Version: 5.97-5.3 Severity: normal The 'touch' documentation (info manual, man page and 'touch --help' output) needs to be clarified. 1. First, 'touch' follows symbolic links, and the documentation should say that, because this is far from being clear (e.g. 'rm' and 'ls' don't