Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 15:48:41 +0100 From: Mark <admin@asarian-host.net> To: "Ceri Davies" <setantae@submonkey.net> Cc: "Andrew Cutler" <andrew@1stelement.com>, <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: chown broken?? Message-ID: <200212201448.GBKEMQM99487@asarian-host.net> References: <1040390551.921.36.camel@localhost> <200212201412.GBKECSM91804@asarian-host.net> <20021220141504.GB6893@submonkey.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ceri Davies" <setantae@submonkey.net> To: "Mark" <admin@asarian-host.net> Cc: "Andrew Cutler" <andrew@1stelement.com>; <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 3:15 PM Subject: Re: chown broken?? > 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. - 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?200212201448.GBKEMQM99487>