Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 12:07:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Andre Albsmeier <Andre.Albsmeier@mchp.siemens.de> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Suggestion for chown -h Message-ID: <199710221007.MAA01578@curry.mchp.siemens.de>
index | next in thread | raw e-mail
Hi,
after asking on -questions why "chown -R -h" isn't
allowed, I was told that this is due to the possibility
that there might be symlinks which point to underlaying
directories somewhere else.
However, this might really be a problem, but only if
the symlinks are followed. So if neither -L nor -H
are specified, I think it would be safe to allow -h
with -R.
The diff's are quite simple:
*** chown.c.ORI Wed Oct 22 11:35:40 1997
--- chown.c Tue Oct 21 20:23:30 1997
***************
*** 116,122 ****
fts_options = FTS_PHYSICAL;
if (Rflag) {
! if (hflag)
errx(1, "the -R and -h options may not be specified together");
if (Hflag)
fts_options |= FTS_COMFOLLOW;
--- 116,122 ----
fts_options = FTS_PHYSICAL;
if (Rflag) {
! if (hflag && (Lflag || Hflag) )
errx(1, "the -R and -h options may not be specified together");
if (Hflag)
fts_options |= FTS_COMFOLLOW;
I have tried it here and it works quite nice. The reason,
why I like it is, to pass a whole directory over to another
user; of course without the files the symlinks are pointing at.
What do you think about that?
-Andre
help
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710221007.MAA01578>