21

So there's chown which lets you change the owner and group of files and/or directories. But there's also chgrp which only changes the group. Why was chgrp created? Isn't it redundant?

34

chown initially couldn't set the group. Later, some implementations added it as chown user.group, some as chown user:group until it was eventually standardised (emphasis mine):

The 4.3 BSD method of specifying both owner and group was included in this volume of POSIX.1-2008 because:

There are cases where the desired end condition could not be achieved using the chgrp and chown (that only changed the user ID) utilities. (If the current owner is not a member of the desired group and the desired owner is not a member of the current group, the chown() function could fail unless both owner and group are changed at the same time.)

Even if they could be changed independently, in cases where both are being changed, there is a 100% performance penalty caused by being forced to invoke both utilities.

Even now, chown :group to only change the group is not portable or standard.

chown user: (to assign the primary group of the user in the user database) is not standard either.

  • 2
    @dayuloli, thanks for the edit, but I didn't include that section of the spec because I don't understand it – Stéphane Chazelas Jun 14 '14 at 8:09
  • Good question! Upvoted! – dayuloli Jun 14 '14 at 11:29
  • Nice to see that :group ans user: have been mentioned as non-standard. Many people here only check what their local vendor does and this is not helpful in a generic UNIX portal. – schily Jul 18 '18 at 12:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.