On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:48:41PM +0100, Mark wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 03:12:17PM +0100, Mark wrote: > > > > > I must say, though, that while I understand this behaviour, one can > > > argue on what exactly "recursive" is to mean here. Intuitively, > > > the definition of "the current sub-directory and all sub-directories > > > below the current directory (and that for each subdirectory)" seems > > > the correct one. Which would exclude "..", as this is not a > sub-directory > > > of the current directory, but the parent. > > > > Not really. It recurses through the directories named on the command > > line, of which '..' happens to be one. > > Yes, "the directories named on the command line" within the CURRENT > directory. Technically, "." and ".." are entries within the current > directory (try: "od -c ."), and they have inode numbers too. But that does > not deter me from deeming it a bit counter-intuitive to consider ".." a > directory of the current directory. :) Especially in the context of > recursion.
You're saying that "chown -R 700 /tmp" doesn't work then ? Ceri -- Face the fire of a 250 pound woman! To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
