From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Aug  9 18:00:22 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1233)
	id 1F0AE106566B; Mon,  9 Aug 2010 18:00:22 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2010 18:00:22 +0000
From: Alexander Best <arundel@freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Message-ID: <20100809180022.GA33596@freebsd.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: chflags(1) unaware utilties
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:00:22 -0000

hi there,

chflags(1) mentions that a few utilities including pax(1) aren't chflags aware yet. is there a list of all those utilties available somewhere?
also: i don't quite understand why this is in the BUGS section of chflags(1) and not in the pax(1) manual itself [1]. this doesn't seem very logical, since the bug doesn't exist in chflags, but in pax not supporting chflags.
so if someone decides to use pax and wants to know if there are any problem with it, there's no way for the average user to stumble upon the fact that chflags isn't supported in pax.

in fact the pax(1) manual states that `pax -p e` will "preserve everything". this is plain wrong!

cheers.
alex

[1] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=docs/135516

-- 
a13x