Re: x bit for dirs: misfeature?

James A Sutherland
2001-11-19T19:08:07Z

On Monday 19 November 2001 7:39 pm, vda wrote:
> On Monday 19 November 2001 17:24, James A Sutherland wrote:
> > > > Yes, I see... All I can do is to add workarounds (ok,ok, 'support')
> > > > to chmod and friends:
> > > >
> > > > chmod -R a+R dir - sets r for files and rx for dirs
> > >
> > > X sets x for dirs, leaves files alone.
> >
> > Which sounds like exactly the behaviour the original poster wanted,
> > AFAICS?
>
> Yes, that sounds like the behaviour I want. But X flag does not do that.
> Sorry.

Oh? I just checked, and X *does* set the x bit on directories only, leaving
files unaffected. What's wrong with that? Does it not do this on your system?
Or do you want some other behaviour?

> James, I don't like flame wars. Lets ask ourself: does this thread have any
> useful results? Unfortunately, not many.
> Patches for chmod source would be better. Perhaps I should do that...

Patch it to do what? The current behaviour seems to me to be what you want...

> Let's refrain from "you're fool... go read manpage" type
> discussions. Not productive.

Agreed - if the question were covered in a manpage, I doubt there would be a
thread here on LKML about it :)

James.