Sergey Poznyakoff wrote:
> Jim Meyering ha escrit:
>> Since the above behavior is not specified by POSIX, and
>> is IMHO, counter-intuitive, I propose to change it. However,
>> it is documented both in coreutils and in cpio's manuals.
>
> I'm not particularly bound to this feature, but it was her
Jim Meyering ha escrit:
> Since the above behavior is not specified by POSIX, and
> is IMHO, counter-intuitive, I propose to change it. However,
> it is documented both in coreutils and in cpio's manuals.
I'm not particularly bound to this feature, but it was here for such a
long time that remo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bob Proulx on 12/2/2009 7:25 PM:
> I would prefer not to remove this very useful feature. Of course I
> find it useful because I use it quite often. But I understand that if
> it isn't standard then we should remove it from the tool.
PO
Jim Meyering wrote:
> While writing a few tests for userspec (below), I was surprised to
> re-learn that chown USER_NAME: has a special meaning. It is a
> shorthand for chown USER_NAME:+$(id -g USER_NAME) ...
> I had expected it to be equivalent to this:
> chown USER_NAME ...
I use it quite often
Jim Meyering writes:
> Opinions?
This change would make GNU chown behave like BSD chown (at least, I
just now checked FreeBSD), so I'd say it's a simple compatibility fix
and does not need a long phase-in period. (Of course if you prefer
being conservative that's fine too.)
Jim Meyering wrote:
Hello,
While writing a few tests for userspec (below), I was surprised to
re-learn that chown USER_NAME: has a special meaning. It is a
shorthand for chown USER_NAME:+$(id -g USER_NAME) ...
I had expected it to be equivalent to this:
chown USER_NAME ...
Since the above beha
Jim Meyering writes:
> While writing a few tests for userspec (below), I was surprised to
> re-learn that chown USER_NAME: has a special meaning. It is a
> shorthand for chown USER_NAME:+$(id -g USER_NAME) ...
> I had expected it to be equivalent to this:
> chown USER_NAME ...
>
> Since the abov
Hello,
While writing a few tests for userspec (below), I was surprised to
re-learn that chown USER_NAME: has a special meaning. It is a
shorthand for chown USER_NAME:+$(id -g USER_NAME) ...
I had expected it to be equivalent to this:
chown USER_NAME ...
Since the above behavior is not specified
