Re: 4th set of permission bits?
-----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?
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? also
there would have to be some kind of synchronisation with enabling/disabling
within hurd?
Is this the right list for discussing design strategies?
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:33:45 +0100
> From: Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de>
> To: Robert Marlow <rmarlow@tartarus.uwa.edu.au>
> Cc: debian-hurd@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: 4th set of permission bits?
>
> This feature is fully implemented on the Hurd side,
> but we are not certain on the best default (active or
> use "other" bits), and tools like chmod, ls need to be changed.
> So the work has to be done in fileutils etc.
>
> Marcus
- --
from
da Bobstopper
(Public Key available at http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/~rmarlow/bobstopper.gpg)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE6HqHv/dIi4WVxTXMRAnd9AJ40lnf/lURvohIUPCWTg/1H8IwoagCfeq91
Rz9oyAO4aa7RYjN16o5BuK0=
=oH4M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: