GNU bug report logs -
#25223
chmod +w does not work
Previous Next
Reported by: Eugen Dedu <eugen.dedu <at> univ-fcomte.fr>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2016 17:23:01 UTC
Severity: normal
Tags: notabug
Done: Assaf Gordon <assafgordon <at> gmail.com>
Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.
To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 25223 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 25223 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.
Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.
Report forwarded
to
bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org
:
bug#25223
; Package
coreutils
.
(Sun, 18 Dec 2016 17:23:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Acknowledgement sent
to
Eugen Dedu <eugen.dedu <at> univ-fcomte.fr>
:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to
bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org
.
(Sun, 18 Dec 2016 17:23:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Hi,
chmod +w file does not work:
snoopy:~$ touch ff
snoopy:~$ ls -l ff
-rw-r--r-- 1 ededu ededu 0 Dec 18 13:31 ff
snoopy:~$ chmod +w ff
snoopy:~$ ls -l ff
-rw-r--r-- 1 ededu ededu 0 Dec 18 13:31 ff
snoopy:~$ chmod +x ff
snoopy:~$ ls -l ff
-rwxr-xr-x 1 ededu ededu 0 Dec 18 13:31 ff
snoopy:~$ chmod --version
chmod (GNU coreutils) 8.26
Kind regards,
--
Eugen
Information forwarded
to
bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org
:
bug#25223
; Package
coreutils
.
(Sun, 18 Dec 2016 17:35:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #8 received at 25223 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
tag 25223 notabug
close 25223
stop
On 18/12/16 12:37, Eugen Dedu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> chmod +w file does not work:
>
> snoopy:~$ touch ff
> snoopy:~$ ls -l ff
> -rw-r--r-- 1 ededu ededu 0 Dec 18 13:31 ff
> snoopy:~$ chmod +w ff
> snoopy:~$ ls -l ff
> -rw-r--r-- 1 ededu ededu 0 Dec 18 13:31 ff
> snoopy:~$ chmod +x ff
> snoopy:~$ ls -l ff
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 ededu ededu 0 Dec 18 13:31 ff
> snoopy:~$ chmod --version
> chmod (GNU coreutils) 8.26
From the man page, taking particular note of the last line...
"A combination of the letters ugoa controls which users' access to the
file will be changed: the user who owns it (u), other users in the
file's group (g), other users not in the file's group (o), or all users
(a). If none of these are given, the effect is as if (a) were given,
but bits that are set in the umask are not affected."
Information forwarded
to
bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org
:
bug#25223
; Package
coreutils
.
(Sun, 18 Dec 2016 18:03:01 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #11 received at 25223 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
On 18/12/16 18:34, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> tag 25223 notabug
> close 25223
> stop
>
> On 18/12/16 12:37, Eugen Dedu wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> chmod +w file does not work:
>>
>> snoopy:~$ touch ff
>> snoopy:~$ ls -l ff
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 ededu ededu 0 Dec 18 13:31 ff
>> snoopy:~$ chmod +w ff
>> snoopy:~$ ls -l ff
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 ededu ededu 0 Dec 18 13:31 ff
>> snoopy:~$ chmod +x ff
>> snoopy:~$ ls -l ff
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 ededu ededu 0 Dec 18 13:31 ff
>> snoopy:~$ chmod --version
>> chmod (GNU coreutils) 8.26
>
>>From the man page, taking particular note of the last line...
>
> "A combination of the letters ugoa controls which users' access to the
> file will be changed: the user who owns it (u), other users in the
> file's group (g), other users not in the file's group (o), or all users
> (a). If none of these are given, the effect is as if (a) were given,
> but bits that are set in the umask are not affected."
Ah, I see now (I have read the man without paying particular attention
to that line).
I wonder why I have not seen this particularity until now; I looked back
at version 5.2.1 and this line in the man page was still there... Is
there a rationale for this, i.e. chmod to use umask?
Thank you,
--
Eugen
Information forwarded
to
bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org
:
bug#25223
; Package
coreutils
.
(Sun, 18 Dec 2016 19:16:02 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
Message #14 received at 25223 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
Eugen Dedu wrote:
> Is there a rationale for this, i.e. chmod to use umask?
It's specified by POSIX. I expect the idea was to make it a bit harder to grant
permissions that the user didn't intend.
Added tag(s) notabug.
Request was from
Assaf Gordon <assafgordon <at> gmail.com>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Sun, 28 Oct 2018 07:44:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
bug closed, send any further explanations to
25223 <at> debbugs.gnu.org and Eugen Dedu <eugen.dedu <at> univ-fcomte.fr>
Request was from
Assaf Gordon <assafgordon <at> gmail.com>
to
control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Sun, 28 Oct 2018 07:44:03 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
bug archived.
Request was from
Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org>
to
internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org
.
(Sun, 25 Nov 2018 12:24:06 GMT)
Full text and
rfc822 format available.
This bug report was last modified 6 years and 210 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.