[gentoo-dev] Re: New find string?

[Grant Goodyear]

Neat!  Did you add the final find string to the bug you created?

Great work,
g2boojum

Daniel Hurt wrote: [Wed Jul 07 2004, 01:24:54PM EDT]
> Do not think that I ever told you what the command replacement should
> be.  But here it is.
>
> The +0111 perm flag is not accepted on OpenBSD, you can just replace it
> with a series of "Or"ed tests.
>
> -perm +0111 = \( -perm 0100 -or -perm 0010 -or -perm 0001 \)
>
> The second regex actually does nothing in portage right now.  I
> submitted a bug about it. But the replacement should be either of the
> following two commands depending on what they want the behavior in
> portage to be.
>
> 1) -name *.so
> 2) \( -name *.so -or -name *.so.* \)
>
> So the final command would look something like this:
> find "${x}" -type f \( -perm -0100 -or -perm -0010 -or -perm -0001 -or
> -name *.so \)
>
> I was able to verify the perm check.  I ran it for all the files in my
> system both ways and then ran a diff on the list of files both methods
> generated and they were identical and so I am sure that it works.
>
> It seems that openBSD has a more restrictive find command than FreeBSD
> because the original command works on FreeBSD.  I do not have an openBSD
> system to verify that the command works on that machine, but from
> reading the man page, it should work.  So if someone could verify that
> the final form of the command works, that would be great.
>
> Dan
>
> Grant Goodyear wrote:
> >If anybody is feeling bored, one of the portage fixes we need is to
> >rewrite the following line so that it works w/ BSD find:
> >
> >find "${x}" -type f \( -perm +0111 -or -regex '\.so$|\.so\.' \) -print0
> >
> >Help?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >g2boojum
>

-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@g.o
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76