Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/05/09/18:34:11
On Fri, 9 May 2003, Randall R Schulz wrote:
> AC,.
>
> At 15:18 2003-05-09, lists AT m8y DOT org wrote:
> >On Fri, 9 May 2003, Winston Gutkowski wrote:
> >
> > > Don't want to flog a dead horse, but if I read the manpages right
> > it seems that
> > > -222
> > > should be true only if the 'w' flag is on in all 3 positions, but
> > > +222
> > > will be true only if the 'w' flag is on in *any* of the 3 positions.
> > >
> > > Is this right? Also, I didn't find any refernce to the shorthand
> > +2. Perhaps it's one of those mystical osmosis things...:-)
>
> Winston. You're right. There is no such thing in GNU find.
>
>
> > > My reading of the manual is that:
> > > -222 examines bit 2 being on in all of the 3 areas
> > > +2 examines bit 2 being on in all of the 3 areas
> > > 222 checks exact permissions 222
> >
> >Erm.
> > +2 examines bit 2 being on in all of the 3 areas
> >should read
> > +2 examines bit 2 being on in any of the 3 areas
>
> There is no such shorthand (documented). "-perm +2" will only match
> when the other / world write bit is set. It will not mach when the
> owner and / or group write bits are set and the other / world write bit
> is not. And so on, as my previous experiment showed.
>
> Maybe you're thinking of a some other find--a non GNU version?
Stand corrected.
P'raps this thread can die. :)
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -