Thus spake Jan Schaumann ("JS> ") sometime Yesterday...

JS> "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> wrote:
JS>
JS> > So far as I know, our chmod ALREADY behaves correctly.
JS>
JS> So the behaviour I reported in
JS> http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2003/12/13/0008.html is
JS> correct?  It seems to me that 'chmod o-X' should remove the executable
JS> bit from all directories or files that have it set.  Instead, atm, it
JS> _sets_ the executable bit, as if 'chmd o+X' had been issued.

It seems to me that -X should be a no-op, since logically it makes no
sense; use -x instead (i.e. what would "-X" achieve that "-x" wouldn't?).

				--*greywolf;
--
22 Ways to Get Yourself Killed While Watching 'The Lord Of The Rings':

#4: Point and laugh whenever someone dies.