Re: chown(2) vs lchown(2) and application breakage
>A bunch of us looked at this very carefully and decided that posix was
>pretty ambiguous. I personally feel that the LACK of lchown in posix means
>that chown has to operate on the link and not what is pointed to. If that
>were not true then all links would be owned by root on a posix system. Of
>course, any system that has lchown does this backwards (BSD) :> The best
>would have been if lchown ment operate on the link and chown ment operate
>on the file.. but it doesn't..
IIRC, POSIX does not require the existance of symbolic links. The BSD
folks appear to have had a similar problem (chown() suddenly started
follwing symlinks that is. See
http://www.sigmasoft.com/~openbsd/tech/msg00935.html). I also have
fuzzy memories of posixly systems where you couldn't change owners of
symlinks. (I may recall incorrectly though.)
Regards,
/Anders
--
-- Of course I'm crazy, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Anders Hammarquist | Mud at Kingdoms | iko@netg.se
NetGuide Scandinavia | telnet kingdoms.se 1812 | Fax: +46 31 50 79 39
http://www.netg.se | | Tel: +46 31 50 79 40
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: