Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 31 March 2008 20:02, Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I like Michael's suggestion. Rephrasing it, >> >> if (SELinux, with no other MAC or ACL) >> use '.' >> else if (any other combination of alternate access methods) >> use '+' >> >> If someone who already has a copyright assignment on file for coreutils >> wants to write the patch (including doc update, tests, NEWS, ChangeLog, >> etc.), please speak up ASAP. Otherwise I'll do it. > > I still believe that as when running SE Linux all files will have contexts > (the kernel code generates them if they are on a filesystem that doesn't > support persistent storage of contexts or if they are unlabelled) then the SE > Linux access controls should not be listed in "ls -l" output.
I do understand your sentiment. If you raise the issue with the Austin Group, they'll at least consider whether to adjust that part of the POSIX ls specification. > That said, the above suggestion makes sense and would work reasonably well. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
