Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 19:23:52 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 206809] [patch] Add Octal Number Support for install -f Message-ID: <bug-206809-8-mLMrD4d6MF@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-206809-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-206809-8@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D206809 --- Comment #2 from A.J. Kehoe IV (Nanoman) <freebsd-bugs@nanoman.ca> --- Here's what install(1)'s manual shows for -f: "Specify the target's file flags; see chflags(1) for a list of possible fla= gs and their meanings." I interpret the first part of this sentence as meaning that the target's fi= le flags will be set to whatever has been defined by -f, not that they will be adjusted like what you'd get by using chflags(1). If I'm interpreting this incorrectly, then maybe this should be reworded to avoid confusion. When I see chflags(1) for a list of possible flags, the manual shows me that "flags are specified as an octal number or a comma separated list of keywor= ds". I interpret this as meaning that install(1) should support either octal numbers or keywords, but looking at /head/usr.bin/xinstall/xinstall.c, I see support for keywords, and no support for octal numbers. If the intention is to phase out usage of octal numbers, then maybe a better solution would be to change install(1)'s manual entry for its -f option to something like this: "Specify the target's file flags; see the keywords section of chflags(1) fo= r a list of possible flags and their meanings. Use -f '' to specify no flags f= or the target." --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-206809-8-mLMrD4d6MF>