At 02:24 PM 6/30/2005, you wrote: >Larry Hall wrote: >>At 04:03 PM 6/28/2005, you wrote: >[SNIP] >>>IMO, it should be the other way around, i.e. no error but a '+' to >>>signify an ACL, for two reasons: >>> >>>1. Transperency. Since the UNIX permissions are emulated, one could >>>argue that all files should have the '+' displayed... >>Traditional UNIX permissions have always been represented by "drwxrwxrwx" >>permission displays (yes, I know "s" and "t" are possible options in some >>of the above locations). ACLs are just different kinds of permissions that >>don't obviously map into the traditional UNIX permissions. UNIX permissions >>do not imply or require the use of ACLs so using a '+' for all files would >>misleading. Using '+' as you mentioned for all files displayed by Cygwin's >>'ls' would actually make it less transparent, not more. > >That's not what I meant. My point was that since all files (natively) >have ACLs, tt makes sense to assume that a locked file has an ACL.
The alternative is also safe to assume. Either way, I don't see how having it one way (+) versus the other ( ) makes any difference. Do you? -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
