Paul Goyette wrote in
:
...
| ( p->fts_statp->st_mode && 07000 ) == 0))
^^
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer,The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 11:25:03PM +, RVP wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023, Paul Goyette wrote:
> > I propose the attached enhancement to chown/chgrp to avoid setting
> > a new user/group value if the desired values are already set. The
> > change is pretty simple.
> I don't think we need a flag f
Am Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 11:25:03PM + schrieb RVP:
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2023, Paul Goyette wrote:
>
> > I propose the attached enhancement to chown/chgrp to avoid setting
> > a new user/group value if the desired values are already set. The
> > change is pretty simple.
> >
>
> I don't think we n
On Sat, 29 Apr 2023, ?? wrote:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 11:25:03PM +, RVP wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023, Paul Goyette wrote:
I propose the attached enhancement to chown/chgrp to avoid setting
a new user/group value if the desired values are already set. The
change is pretty simple.
I don
On Fri, 28 Apr 2023, Paul Goyette wrote:
I propose the attached enhancement to chown/chgrp to avoid setting
a new user/group value if the desired values are already set. The
change is pretty simple.
I don't think we need a flag for this. I think what you're proposing
should just be the defau
Seems to me that a recursive chown/chgrp, in a large directory with
_most_but_not_all files already set to the desired owner/group, can
be rather wastefull. As near as I can tell, the kernel is called
for every file, even those for whom the update of attributes is
effectively a no-op. Further, t
