[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: chown xxx.yyy, POSIX, and LSB
From: |
Tim Waugh |
Subject: |
Re: chown xxx.yyy, POSIX, and LSB |
Date: |
Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:57:16 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 06:49:55PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Let's hope the LSB is flexible on this, if they haven't
> already corrected things for the next version.
Version 1.3 says that '.' is supported, while the current 2.0 draft
says that it is deprecated (but still supported). On the off-chance
that it can be removed altogether I filed this bug report:
http://bugs.linuxbase.org/show_bug.cgi?id=98
> > Is there any chance of making this new rejection behaviour dependent
> > on POSIXLY_CORRECT (i.e. having the old behaviour remain the default
> > in its absence), rather than only providing the old behaviour with
> > _POSIX2_VERSION=199209?
>
> It wouldn't make sense to tie chown's accepting `.' in place of `:'
> to POSIXLY_CORRECT, since it would make chown interpret a.b as username
> `a' and group `b' while POSIX requires that it be interpreted
> as username `a.b'.
>
> So I guess it'd be more like POSIXLY_INCORRECT :)
Just to be clear about what I mean, here is the patch I intend to
apply for the Fedora Core coreutils package:
--- coreutils-5.2.0/lib/userspec.c.allow_old_options 2004-02-23
16:51:00.000000000 +0000
+++ coreutils-5.2.0/lib/userspec.c 2004-02-23 17:04:41.000000000 +0000
@@ -171,7 +171,8 @@
separator = strchr (spec, ':');
/* If there is no colon, then see if there's a `.'. */
- if (separator == NULL && posix2_version () < 200112)
+ if (separator == NULL && (posix2_version () < 200112 ||
+ !getenv ("POSIXLY_CORRECT")))
{
dot = strchr (spec, '.');
/* If there's no colon but there is a `.', then first look up the
Tim.
*/
- chown xxx.yyy, POSIX, and LSB, Tim Waugh, 2004/02/23
- Re: chown xxx.yyy, POSIX, and LSB, Jim Meyering, 2004/02/23
- Re: chown xxx.yyy, POSIX, and LSB,
Tim Waugh <=
- Re: chown xxx.yyy, POSIX, and LSB, Jim Meyering, 2004/02/23
- Re: chown xxx.yyy, POSIX, and LSB, Paul Jarc, 2004/02/23
- Re: chown xxx.yyy, POSIX, and LSB, Tim Waugh, 2004/02/23
- Re: chown xxx.yyy, POSIX, and LSB, Jim Meyering, 2004/02/23
- Re: chown xxx.yyy, POSIX, and LSB, Paul Eggert, 2004/02/23