Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:54:26 +0000 From: Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net> To: Mark <admin@asarian-host.net> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: chown broken?? Message-ID: <20021220145426.GA7277@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <200212201448.GBKEMQM99487@asarian-host.net> References: <1040390551.921.36.camel@localhost> <200212201412.GBKECSM91804@asarian-host.net> <20021220141504.GB6893@submonkey.net> <200212201448.GBKEMQM99487@asarian-host.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 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?20021220145426.GA7277>