On 1 Jul 2005 12:46:09 -0700, BigMan wrote:
> Why doesn't "chmod o=u" copy write permissions on a file?

You need to give a whole lot more information than that so a meaningful
answer can be given. Show us the file's current permissions and owner,
who you're doing it as, what you expect to happen, etc.

If you're asking what I think you're asking, it does (or rather should).
The above details will help to describe what's going on more clearly.

Here's some more info:

/home/angel/chmod_tests:ls -al; chmod o=u a; ls -al
total 12
drwx------ 2 angel angel 4096 Jul 1 21:31 .
drwxr-xr-x 7 angel angel 4096 Jul 1 23:31 ..
-rwx------ 1 angel angel 6 Jul 1 21:31 a
total 12
drwx------ 2 angel angel 4096 Jul 1 21:31 .
drwxr-xr-x 7 angel angel 4096 Jul 1 23:31 ..
-rwx---r-x 1 angel angel 6 Jul 1 21:31 a

I issue the above commands as "angel" (the owner). What other info
could be helpful?

In article <1120250596.156642.180730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups. com>,
"BigMan" wrote:

> Here's some more info:
>
> /home/angel/chmod_tests:ls -al; chmod o=u a; ls -al
> total 12
> drwx------ 2 angel angel 4096 Jul 1 21:31 .
> drwxr-xr-x 7 angel angel 4096 Jul 1 23:31 ..
> -rwx------ 1 angel angel 6 Jul 1 21:31 a
> total 12
> drwx------ 2 angel angel 4096 Jul 1 21:31 .
> drwxr-xr-x 7 angel angel 4096 Jul 1 23:31 ..
> -rwx---r-x 1 angel angel 6 Jul 1 21:31 a
>
> I issue the above commands as "angel" (the owner). What other info
> could be helpful?

It works properly for me on OS X 10.3.9:

barmar $ chmod 700 foo
barmar $ ls -l foo
-rwx------ 1 barmar barmar 0 1 Jul 20:12 foo
barmar $ chmod o=u foo
barmar $ ls -l foo
-rwx---rwx 1 barmar barmar 0 1 Jul 20:12 foo

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

On 2005-07-01, BigMan wrote:
> Here's some more info:
>
> /home/angel/chmod_tests:ls -al; chmod o=u a; ls -al
> total 12
> drwx------ 2 angel angel 4096 Jul 1 21:31 .
> drwxr-xr-x 7 angel angel 4096 Jul 1 23:31 ..
> -rwx------ 1 angel angel 6 Jul 1 21:31 a
> total 12
> drwx------ 2 angel angel 4096 Jul 1 21:31 .
> drwxr-xr-x 7 angel angel 4096 Jul 1 23:31 ..
> -rwx---r-x 1 angel angel 6 Jul 1 21:31 a
>
> I issue the above commands as "angel" (the owner). What other info
> could be helpful?

What system are you using?

It works for me on Linux (Debian 3.1):

$ ls -l Teams; chmod o=u Teams; ls -l Teams
-rwxrwx--- 1 chris chris 586 Oct 29 2004 Teams
-rwxrwxrwx 1 chris chris 586 Oct 29 2004 Teams

--
Chris F.A. Johnson
================================================== ================
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach, 2005, Apress

I'm using a yellowdog Linux.

BigMan wrote:
> Why doesn't "chmod o=u" copy write permissions on a file?

I think you have a typo! Try chmod o+a filename.txt instead
of chmod o=a filename.txt (substitute + for =) Doesn't +
add the ability and - take it away? No system available
right now or I'd test it.

--
Take care | This clown speaks for himself, his job doesn't
Wayne D. | pay for this, etc. (directly anyway)

Same result if you mean chmod o+u filename. Otherwise explain the
meaning of chmod o+a filename.

BigMan wrote:
> I'm using a yellowdog Linux.
>

Perhaps an old bug? How old is this yellowdog? Is it even pre-coreutils?

rpm -q --whatprovides /bin/chmod

might be even more pertinent.

Wayne Dernoncourt wrote:

> BigMan wrote:
>> Why doesn't "chmod o=u" copy write permissions on a file?
>
> I think you have a typo! Try chmod o+a filename.txt instead
> of chmod o=a filename.txt (substitute + for =) Doesn't +
> add the ability and - take it away? No system available
> right now or I'd test it.
>

Not a typo, o=u means set perms for "other" the same as what is currently
set for "user"
Eric

In article ,
Eric wrote:

> Wayne Dernoncourt wrote:
>
> > BigMan wrote:
> >> Why doesn't "chmod o=u" copy write permissions on a file?
> >
> > I think you have a typo! Try chmod o+a filename.txt instead
> > of chmod o=a filename.txt (substitute + for =) Doesn't +
> > add the ability and - take it away? No system available
> > right now or I'd test it.
> >
>
> Not a typo, o=u means set perms for "other" the same as what is currently
> set for "user"

Do you realize you're replying to something over 2 weeks old? I'm
pretty sure someone pointed this out way back then.

--
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***