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.
2. Probability. If the file is busy there's good chance that the file
has an ACL.
Actually no. It just means the file is locked. As Corinna pointed out,
there is no distinction in Windows between the meta data and the file.
If the file is locked, the meta data is too and vice versa. So a locked
file tells you nothing about the existence of ACLs on this file.
See my other post in this thread.
--
/Lasse
--
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/
