Re: 4th set of permission bits?
On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 01:14:07AM +0800, Robert Marlow wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Ah, so this is still largely a matter of indecision? What exactly are the
> reasons against having the fourth set of permission bits active. Is it
> a matter of making the system a bit too non-unixy?
There are two reasons:
1. No tools support manipulation of the fourth set of permission bits.
2. There is one more bit. If 0, for not-logged-in user the permission set
of "other" is used. If 1, the fourth set is used. It is undecided if the
this should probably be reversed (so the permissions for not logged in
users are empty by default).
I'd say implement the support in fileutils, and we will decide about the
default.
> How much trouble would making a choice available for these permissions be?
> My guess is it would probably require quite a bit of codechanging in
> fileutils or making 2 versions of fileutils available or something, yes?
No, those issues are complete orthogonal (maybe the name of some flag would
have to be changed, or some doc).
> Is this the right list for discussing design strategies?
There is not much to design. The flag names of the tools and output format
should also be discussed with the fileutils maintainers.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Reply to: