Thus spake Tim Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:27:43PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:27:00 -0800
> > David Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I'm concerned about the used character: "-r" is similiar to "-R"
> > > >
> > > >
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 01:27:43PM +0100, Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:27:00 -0800
> David Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm concerned about the used character: "-r" is similiar to "-R"
> > >
> > > Yes, `-r' would be a very poor choice for the reason you sta
Thus spake Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > I'm concerned about the used character: "-r" is similiar to "-R"
> > >
> > > Yes, `-r' would be a very poor choice for the reason you state.
> >
> > Agreed, but the precedent has already been set by touch(1) and
> > truncate(1). If we'r
On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:27:00 -0800
David Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm concerned about the used character: "-r" is similiar to "-R"
> >
> > Yes, `-r' would be a very poor choice for the reason you state.
>
> Agreed, but the precedent has already been set by touch(1) and
> truncate
Thus spake Garrett Wollman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I'm concerned about the used character: "-r" is similiar to "-R"
>
> Yes, `-r' would be a very poor choice for the reason you state.
Agreed, but the precedent has already been set by touch(1) and
truncate(1). If we're going to get it wrong some
On 19-Nov-2002 Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 21:01:33 +0100 (CET)
> Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > The patch adds an option -r to chown(8) and chgrp(1), which
>>
On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 21:01:33 +0100 (CET)
Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The patch adds an option -r to chown(8) and chgrp(1), which
> > > does pretty much the same as the -r option of t
<
said:
> I'm concerned about the used character: "-r" is similiar to "-R"
Yes, `-r' would be a very poor choice for the reason you state.
-GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The patch adds an option -r to chown(8) and chgrp(1), which
> > does pretty much the same as the -r option of touch(1) and
> > truncate(1). Basically, it let's you "copy" ownerships and
> > group mem
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 12:29:20 +0100 (CET)
Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The patch adds an option -r to chown(8) and chgrp(1), which
> does pretty much the same as the -r option of touch(1) and
> truncate(1). Basically, it let's you "copy" ownerships and
> group memberships from one fi
David Wolfskill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:29:20PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > I've submitted a small patch (bin/45333) for both -stable
> > and -current, but I haven't been able to test it under
> > -current (due to lack of a spare machine). Would someone
> >
On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 12:29:20PM +0100, Oliver Fromme wrote:
> I've submitted a small patch (bin/45333) for both -stable
> and -current, but I haven't been able to test it under
> -current (due to lack of a spare machine). Would someone
> please give it a try and let me know if it compiles and
>
Hi,
I've submitted a small patch (bin/45333) for both -stable
and -current, but I haven't been able to test it under
-current (due to lack of a spare machine). Would someone
please give it a try and let me know if it compiles and
works?
The patch adds an option -r to chown(8) and chgrp(1), which
13 matches
Mail list logo
