Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 05:22:46 -0500 From: "Fafa Diliha Romanova" <fteg@london.com> To: "Loren M. Lang" <lorenl@alzatex.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: chmod equivalent to find commands Message-ID: <20050313102246.7254B4BE6D@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thank you for your kind assistance!
That was exactly what I was looking for.
But after the constructive response from many other kind souls
on this list, I have decided to stick with my find command
for now and keep your recursive chmod as an alternate.
I keep a local mirror of all my modified configuration files
(gives me easy backup and a great deal control over my system).
I needed this command to quickly change permissions and
ownership of the homedir I store them in.
Thanks again!
-- Fafa
----- Original Message -----
From: "Loren M. Lang" <lorenl@alzatex.com>
To: "Fafa Diliha Romanova" <fteg@london.com>
Subject: Re: chmod equivalent to find commands
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 02:09:12 -0800
>=20
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 06:53:59AM -0500, Fafa Diliha Romanova wrote:
> > hello.
> >
> > i know there's an equivalent to these two find commands that
> > can be summed up in one chmod command:
> >
> > find . -type d -exec chmod 755 {} \;
> > find . -type f -exec chmod 644 {} \;
>=20
> The EXACT equivalent would be:
>=20
> find . -type d -exec chmod u=3Drwx,go=3Drx {} \;
> find . -type f -exec chmod u=3Drw,go=3Dr {} \;
>=20
> But I take it that that isn't exactly what your looking for. Your
> probably looking for something like "chmod -R u=3DrwX,go=3DrX ."
>=20
> >
> > it fixes my permissions ...
> > i haven't tested this yet but i think it's wrong: chmod -R u+rwX,a+rX
>=20
> This may work it depends on exactly what you need to do and how bad your
> permissions are messed up. Instead of a+rX, it might be better to do
> go+rX since you already have u covered, but I don't think it will make a
> big difference. Also, this adds to the existing permissions, it won't
> take away any permissions like my example earlier does. Lastly, the big
> difference between this and the find version is that the find version,
> both mine and yours, will set the execute bit on all directories and not
> on any normal files where the recursive chmod with the X permission with
> set the x permission on any file/directory that already has at least one
> type of execute permission already set and not on any other files or
> directories. So if your permissions are messed so badly that you have
> directories without any execute permission, this won't fix that. The
> find version on the other hand will ignore everything that is not a
> normal file or directory (i.e. fifos, sockets, device files), but this
> probably won't be a big deal either. The single recursive chmod I gave
> you will most likely be what you need.
>=20
> >
> > what would be the best solution here?
> >
> > thanks,
> > -- fafa
> >
> > -- ___________________________________________________________
> > Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
> > http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd=
.org"
>=20
> --
> I sense much NT in you.
> NT leads to Bluescreen.
> Bluescreen leads to downtime.
> Downtime leads to suffering.
> NT is the path to the darkside.
> Powerful Unix is.
>=20
> Public Key: ftp://ftp.tallye.com/pub/lorenl_pubkey.asc
> Fingerprint: CEE1 AAE2 F66C 59B5 34CA C415 6D35 E847 0118 A3D2
>=20
<< 2.dat >>
--=20
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050313102246.7254B4BE6D>