Subject: Re: chmod(1) and '+X'
To: Ben Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Perry E. Metzger <email@example.com>
Date: 01/17/2004 11:03:59
Ben Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>does ignore 'X' unless '+' is specified, but behaves as the GNU chmod.
>>So... should our chmod be changed to behave as GNU chmod?
> I think so, yes. POSIX says:
> # The perm symbol X shall represent the execute/search portion of the file
> # mode bits if the file is a directory or if the current (unmodified) file
> # mode bits have at least one of the execute bits (S_IXUSR, S_IXGRP, or
> # S_IXOTH) set. It shall be ignored if the file is not a directory and none
> # of the execute bits are set in the current file mode bits.
> That matches the first sentence of our documentation -- the second sentence
> is wrong and should be deleted, and chmod should then be made to do what the
> documentation says.
So far as I know, our chmod ALREADY behaves correctly.