From: Cohen.Jessica@ic.gc.ca
Date: Wed Oct 01 2003 - 13:57:49 EDT
Thank you to Tim Cutts and Alan Rollow for their replies.
Tim was able to duplicate this bug on his own machines testing between 5.1
and 5.1A; 5.1A also shows the same "quirk".
As far as whether this was an intentional change on HP's part or a bug, I'll
have to e-mail and ask when I have the time I guess. Meanwhile we are
changing the affected scripts to use "mv -f" instead of mv.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cohen, Jessica: DGRB
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 11:35 AM
To: tru64-unix-managers@ornl.gov
Subject: Changes to mv in upgrade from 5.1 to 5.1b?
We just upgraded both an ES40 and a GS60 from 5.1 to 5.1b.
Some of our scripts are now failing with the "mv" command with an error I
can replicate on the command line.
This is an example of our directory:
drwxrwx--- 2 user1 agroup 8192 Sep 30 10:42 .
drwxr-xr-x 27 user1 agroup 8192 Sep 30 10:32 ..
-rw-r--r-- 1 user2 agroup 744 Sep 30 10:34 afile
-rw-r--r-- 1 user2 agroup 222 Sep 30 10:35 bfile
-rw-r--r-- 1 user1 agroup 966 Sep 30 10:35 cfile
We have a script that belongs to "user2" which writes "afile" to the shared
directory.
There is another script owned by "user1" which moves "afile" to "bfile" and
cats "bfile" to a growing log "cfile".
Where the script breaks is with the following error:
"mv: cannot unlink afile: Permission denied" when I try to run the command
"mv afile bfile" as user1.
This type of move still works on the machine that is still at 5.1. Both
user2 and user1 are in the group agroup on all machines.
Does anyone know what has changed with the OS that would change the
behaviour of this command?
I don't need fixes, I have already thought of three that will work (using mv
-f works, using cp and then rm works, and removing bfile before overwriting
it works). However we have alot of scripts that use the mv command, I would
prefer to know why this is changed (i.e. that it is a planned OS change)
before I nudge the developers to start changing all the scripts on a
production system.
Can anyone confirm that this behaviour is part of a change to the OS since
5.1 (even a 5.1a change?) or tell me other things to check that might have
changed when we upgraded the OS?
Jessica Cohen
> Systems Administrator
> Information Systems Administration - DAA
cohen.jessica@ic.gc.ca
Industry Canada
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Apr 12 2008 - 10:49:37 EDT