[Slackbuilds-users] Call for Bug Fixes, Patches, etc

[Erik Hanson]

On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 00:23:17 +0000
"Ryan P.C. McQuen" <ryan.q at linux.com> wrote:


> Erik,
> 
> Are you opposed to this solution?
> 
> find -L . \
>  \( -perm 777 -o -perm 775 -o -perm 750 -o -perm 711 -o -perm 555 \
>   -o -perm 511 \) -print0 | \
>   xargs -0 chmod 755
> find -L . \
>  \( -perm 666 -o -perm 664 -o -perm 640 -o -perm 600 -o -perm 444 \
>   -o -perm 440 -o -perm 400 \) -print0 | \
>   xargs -0 chmod 644
> 
> It was proposed by B. Watson here:
> 
> https://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/2015-November/015210.html
> 
> It seems to work the same as the current template, but is just less
> resource intensive ... but I don't know for sure.

I honestly thought we had agreed to make this change, that another
admin (rworkman?) agreed too. I read through that thread just now and I
don't see it.. so maybe it happened on IRC, or not at all. 

Maybe another admin, rworkman or willysr, could put forward their
thoughts on this change. I don't immediately see any problems with it,
except possibly the amount of arguments chmod can take? (which may
actually be a bash limitation) I suppose we know the answer to that
since all 18k+ files from the mame source worked fine? If that seems to
be the truth, as in all of those files got hit, and not say 100 or 1000
or whatever the command line limit might be, then I'm in favor of this
change. I'm not really in a position to run some tests to find out,
though.

If any of that sounds confusing, what I'm imagining is passing 18k+
file names to chmod, and I seem to remember that type of thing being an
issue in the past. I apologize in advance if that isn't true or I'm
being ignorant on exactly what's happening in the above code.


-- 
Erik