From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Dec 20 6:54:30 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFD4F37B401 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 06:54:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from rhadamanth.submonkey.net (pc1-cdif2-5-cust47.cdif.cable.ntl.com [81.101.150.47]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9835843ED8 for ; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 06:54:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from setantae@submonkey.net) Received: from setantae by rhadamanth.submonkey.net with local (Exim 4.10) id 18POXi-0001tl-00; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:54:26 +0000 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 14:54:26 +0000 From: Ceri Davies To: Mark Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: chown broken?? Message-ID: <20021220145426.GA7277@submonkey.net> Mail-Followup-To: Ceri Davies , Mark , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG References: <1040390551.921.36.camel@localhost> <200212201412.GBKECSM91804@asarian-host.net> <20021220141504.GB6893@submonkey.net> <200212201448.GBKEMQM99487@asarian-host.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200212201448.GBKEMQM99487@asarian-host.net> X-message-flag: All your linuxconf-configured redhat are belong to us. X-message-flag-attribution: suresh, sdm. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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