[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: um ... what's with the "." after the directory perms?



Patrick O'Callaghan wrote, On 03/05/2009 10:19 AM:
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 16:54 -0500, Michel Salim wrote:
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan
<pocallaghan gmail com> wrote:
I thought that was a plus (+) when file ACLs were present.
That's what "info ls" says (though "man ls" doesn't). I can't see any
reference to a '.' as part of the mode.

File a bug? info and man really ought to return the same information.

I decided to report this, but I can't figure out which component to file
it against. There a BZ page for documentation bugs, but nothing
specifically mentions man pages (or info). Or is one expected to file it
against the actual command ('ls')?

poc



According to some posts by Adam Williamson and Jerry Amundson, a few days ago:
locate ls > /tmp/lslocated
#revel where the ls info page is at:
grep \/ls /tmp/lslocated |grep info
#revel where the ls man page is at:
grep \/ls.[0-9].gz /tmp/lslocated

rpm -qf --qf '%{SOURCERPM}\n' info_location
rpm -qf --qf '%{SOURCERPM}\n' man_location

and file against the appropriate package(s) by source rpm.

--
Todd Denniston
Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane)
Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]