Frederick Bruckman <fb@enteract.com> writes:

> Why would you want to exclude dangling symlinks from being operated
> on?

What I want is both dangling and non-dangling symlinks treated in a
same way.

With chown -RHh, non-dangling symliks asked to follow isn't operated
and only its target is operated.  So, I think dangling symliks asked
to follow also shouldn't operated (and I fixed chown -RHh so
recently).

Then, I thought that -RLh should acts as if -RL (all symlinks are
followed and its target is operated).

> I should think that -RLh should mean operate on the symlink, and then
> operate on what it points to, if possible.

How about multilevel symlinks?

> Say you're using this to fix up an untarred heirarchy from another
> machine, with different uids. Why have anything stay with the wrong
> owner?

I'll use -RPh for the whole untarred hierarchy.  Why do you need to
modify files out of hierarchy?

> I've always found it annoying that "chmod" don't allow -Rh, even
> though "chown" does. What I'd like "chmod" -Rh foo bar" to do is
> change the owner of everything in heirarchy "bar" to "foo", whether
> it's a symlink or not, dangling or not, just like "chown". Simple?

Probably, someone modified chown to allow -Rh just didn't remind about
chmod, I guess.

enami.