On Mon, 7 Aug 2000, enami tsugutomo wrote:

> Currently, our chown rejects combination of -RL and -h.  But I'd like
> to allow it (in other words, accepts -RLh as if -RL; or, rephrase as
> follows: all symlinks were followed and didn't encountered to symlink
> except dangling symlink.  Since those dangling symlinks are initially
> requested to follow, we shouldn't opretate on it).  Objections?
> 
> Since we allow other meaningless combination like -L, -R or -H without
> -R, or -R without directory on the command line, just rejecting -RLh
> only is inconsistient and it may not handy for script.

I should think that -RLh should mean operate on the symlink, and then
operate on what it points to, if possible. Why would you want to
exclude dangling symlinks from being operated on? Say you're using
this to fix up an untarred heirarchy from another machine, with
different uids. Why have anything stay with the wrong owner?

I've always found it annoying that "chmod" don't allow -Rh, even
though "chown" does. What I'd like "chmod" -Rh foo bar" to do is
change the owner of everything in heirarchy "bar" to "foo", whether
it's a symlink or not, dangling or not, just like "chown". Simple?



Frederick