[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Why is -mindepth a option and not a test as on *BSD?
From: |
Andreas Metzler |
Subject: |
Why is -mindepth a option and not a test as on *BSD? |
Date: |
Thu, 13 May 2004 16:44:21 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6i |
Hello,
Mark Sheppard has pointed my attention on this:
-------------
$ mkdir -p ./a/aa/aaa ./b/bb c
$ find \( -path ./a -prune \) -o \( -type d -empty -mindepth 2 -print \)
./a/aa/aaa
./b/bb
The prune action should have matched the "a" directory and prevented
./a/aa/aaa from even being looked at, but that didn't happen. It
looks like the -mindepth option is incorrectly applied to the first
expression (before the -o) too, like it's an option that's processed
globally rather than properly nested according to the given
expression.
-------------
I have checked the documtation and actually this is no bug in find,
because it is documented. -mindepth is no test, but an option in GNU
find. I assume it is impossible to change GNU find in this respect,
as it will break backwards compatibility.
FWIW in (Net|Free|Opeb)BSD -mindepth is a test.
cu andreas
--
"See, I told you they'd listen to Reason," [SPOILER] Svfurlr fnlf,
fuhggvat qbja gur juveyvat tha.
Neal Stephenson in "Snow Crash"
[Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread] |
- Why is -mindepth a option and not a test as on *BSD?,
Andreas Metzler <=