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

Sun Mar 13 10:57:11 UTC 2016

Let's suppose a source with a very huge number of files on it, with a very deep directory structure. If if goes bigger than bash expansion of maximum command line size chmod would fail and leave some files with unchanged permissions.

I don't understand, through, why the find + xargs approach. What happened to -execdir, simpler than that?

find -L . \
  \( -perm 777 -o -perm 775 -o -perm 750 -o -perm 711 -o -perm 555 \
  -o -perm 511 \) -execdir 755 {} \;
find -L . \
  \( -perm 666 -o -perm 664 -o -perm 640 -o -perm 600 -o -perm 444 \
  -o -perm 440 -o -perm 400 \) -execdir {} \;

Em 13 de 03 de 2016 às 09:26:07T+0100, Andrzej Telszewski <atelszewski at gmail.com> escreveu:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
> 

-- 
93 93/93
Luís Fernando Carvalho Cavalheiro
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Assinatura digital OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.slackbuilds.org/pipermail/slackbuilds-users/attachments/20160313/41bb7436/attachment.asc>