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

[Andrzej Telszewski]

On 13/03/16 02:18, Luís Fernando Carvalho Cavalheiro wrote:
> I'd stick with find solution. If a source has more files than chmod can handle (or perhaps bash can do, since there may be a limitation on * expansion), it would fail to set desired permissions to files.
>
> Em 13 de 03 de 2016 às 08:11:12T+0700, Willy Sudiarto Raharjo <willysr at slackbuilds.org> escreveu:
>
>>>> 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.
>>
>> I have no objection at all if it's proven to work faster and same
>> results as the current find code.
>>
>> rworkman already mentioned on another thread that he doesn't oppose to
>> this idea, but let me quote his reply on this :
>>
>> "I didn't see any opposition to this, and I don't have any, so if you
>> want to make a user branch within the template repo and ping me
>> about it, I'll be more than happy to merge it for 14.2.
>>
>> Once that's done, and once the current-wip branch gets merged to
>> master (after 14.2 beta/rc announcement) and we get moving a bit
>> heavier there, if you'd like to work up a branch to make the
>> changes in there, we'll definitely consider it.
>>
>> It will probably be worth touching base with us first on that one,
>> because you'll want to minimize the merge conflicts that we are
>> creating while you're doing the changes there"
>>
>> the current condition is now current-wip branch is merged to master,
>> Beta 2 has been announced, but no one is up for the move.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Willy Sudiarto Raharjo
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> SlackBuilds-users mailing list
> SlackBuilds-users at slackbuilds.org
> http://lists.slackbuilds.org/mailman/listinfo/slackbuilds-users
> Archives - http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/
> FAQ - http://slackbuilds.org/faq/
>

So, is the single chmod:
chmod -R u+w,go-w,a+rX-st .

definitely lost?

Why can't we use this solution?

-- 
Best regards,
Andrzej Telszewski