Subject: Re: chmod(1) and '+X'
To: Jan Schaumann <>
From: Greywolf <>
List: tech-userlevel
Date: 01/18/2004 11:43:09
Thus spake Jan Schaumann ("JS> ") sometime Yesterday...

JS> "Perry E. Metzger" <> wrote:
JS> > So far as I know, our chmod ALREADY behaves correctly.
JS> So the behaviour I reported in
JS> is
JS> correct?  It seems to me that 'chmod o-X' should remove the executable
JS> bit from all directories or files that have it set.  Instead, atm, it
JS> _sets_ the executable bit, as if 'chmd o+X' had been issued.

It seems to me that -X should be a no-op, since logically it makes no
sense; use -x instead (i.e. what would "-X" achieve that "-x" wouldn't?).

22 Ways to Get Yourself Killed While Watching 'The Lord Of The Rings':

#4: Point and laugh whenever someone dies.