man chmod; `-X' is in POSIX 1003.1

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

man chmod; `-X' is in POSIX 1003.1

Jonathan Glaschke-2
Hallo,

the manpage of chmod (3) says that the the perm symbol `X' is
not included in POSIX.2, but it is in POSIX (1003.1 2004).

Maybe this could be updated, because 1003.2 is now integrated in
1003.1 and 1003.1 has this `X'.

http://www.unix.org/single_unix_specification/

"The perm symbol X shall represent the execute/search portion of the
file mode bits if the file is a directory or if the current (unmodified)
file mode bits have at least one of the execute bits (S_IXUSR, S_IXGRP,
or S_IXOTH) set. It shall be ignored if the file is not a directory and
none of the execute bits are set in the current file mode bits."

Is this importent enough to mention it?

Regards,
Jonathan

--
 | /"\   ASCII Ribbon   | Jonathan Glaschke - Lorenz-Goertz-Stra_e 71,
 | \ / Campaign Against | 41238 Moenchengladbach, Germany;
 |  X    HTML In Mail   | jabber: [hidden email]
 | / \     And News     | http://jonathan-glaschke.de/

[demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: man chmod; `-X' is in POSIX 1003.1

Jason McIntyre-2
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 07:57:38PM +0100, Jonathan Glaschke wrote:

> Hallo,
>
> the manpage of chmod (3) says that the the perm symbol `X' is
> not included in POSIX.2, but it is in POSIX (1003.1 2004).
>
> Maybe this could be updated, because 1003.2 is now integrated in
> 1003.1 and 1003.1 has this `X'.
>
> http://www.unix.org/single_unix_specification/
>
> "The perm symbol X shall represent the execute/search portion of the
> file mode bits if the file is a directory or if the current (unmodified)
> file mode bits have at least one of the execute bits (S_IXUSR, S_IXGRP,
> or S_IXOTH) set. It shall be ignored if the file is not a directory and
> none of the execute bits are set in the current file mode bits."
>
> Is this importent enough to mention it?
>

i guess you mean chmod(1), rather than chmod(3) ;)
just fixed this page. thanks for the mail.

jmc