Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 05:20:01 +0100 From: Mark <admin@asarian-host.net> To: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: chown broken?? Message-ID: <200212210420.GBL4K9M66872@asarian-host.net> References: <1040390551.921.36.camel@asarian-host.net><20021220141504.GB6893@asarian-host.net> <2klm2k4byl.m2k@localhost.localdomain>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@attbi.com>
To: "Mark" <admin@asarian-host.net>
Cc: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 10:28 PM
Subject: Re: chown broken??
> Mark <admin@asarian-host.net> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> The manpage explicitly mentions neither directories or recursion,
Indeed; and I was going to mention this too, as the man page seems to have
gone out of its way to avoid the word "recursion" and "directrory".
-R Change the user ID and/or the group ID for the file hierarchies
rooted in the files instead of just the files themselves.
Then I looked at the man page for "cp -R .*", which acts like "chown -R .*",
and read:
-R If source_file designates a directory, cp copies the directory and
the entire subtree connected at that point.
Now, see, this is legible to me. :)
- Mark
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200212210420.GBL4K9M66872>