On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 12:30:57PM +0100, Pietro Cerutti wrote:
> Wouter Oosterveld wrote:
> >> Now, from a logical point of view, why moving a file into a directory
> > doesn't fall into the "created into them" case?
> >
> > Because (if on the same filesystem) you don't create a new file. You
>
> >> Now, from a logical point of view, why moving a file into a directory
> > doesn't fall into the "created into them" case?
> >
> > Because (if on the same filesystem) you don't create a new file. You
> > just link the file in the destination dir and unlink the file from the
> > source dir.
>
>
Wouter Oosterveld wrote:
>> Now, from a logical point of view, why moving a file into a directory
> doesn't fall into the "created into them" case?
>
> Because (if on the same filesystem) you don't create a new file. You
> just link the file in the destination dir and unlink the file from the
> so
>Now, from a logical point of view, why moving a file into a directory
doesn't fall into the "created into them" case?
Because (if on the same filesystem) you don't create a new file. You
just link the file in the destination dir and unlink the file from the
source dir.
Regards,
Wouter
2008/2/8
Ok, my view is getting clearer ;-)
my problem in understanding the semantics of mv, cp -p and the rename(2)
function seems to be related to the terminology used in chmod(1) man page.
This is the explanation of setuid (the same holds for setgid):
"Directories with this bit set will force all fil
