lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: Linux-kernel-daily-digest digest, Vol 1 #171 - 281 msgs
Date
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.057 / U:0.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site