Messages in this thread | | | From | vda <> | Subject | Re: Linux-kernel-daily-digest digest, Vol 1 #171 - 281 msgs | Date | Wed, 21 Nov 2001 17:39:49 +0000 |
| |
On Wednesday 21 November 2001 15:18, Bill Crawford wrote: > Now, ACLs I want to see widely supported on Linux, and *used* properly > too. They've been little used in most environments I've seen even on > systems that do support them, which is a shame as they are a necessary > and useful idea. Yes, the Un*x permissions system does have some > limitations, but let's not break *all* the existing software and OSs > that use them, since what you're suggesting will not improve things.
Hmm. I thought proper group management can let you live with std UNIX file permissions model... NT ACLs are horrendously complex. "Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler"
> > versions of it). It's too late. I've made patch for chmod which adds new > > +R flag to that effect.
> Why is that needed anyway? By default directories get execute bit set > when they're created, at least in my environment; if you're extending > permissions you can use "go=u" or "o=g" to broaden the permissions, as > I would expect the existing perms to be correct on files vs directories > in most cases.
It is legitimate to do that. Do I really have to explain?
I have a script which is designed to sweep entire tree starting from / and do some sanity checks. For example, it Opens Source:
chmod -R -c a+R /usr/src
8-)
-- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |