> On Sept. 17, 2014, 7:39 p.m., David Faure wrote: > > Interesting, didn't know about this posix restriction (a bit inconsistent > > imho, the readonly dir vs readonly file difference). > > Thomas Lübking wrote: > The ro flag only guarantees integrity, not presence. > > The absent write permission of a directory esp. protects the path of its > entries, ie. you cannot "mv ro_dir/foo ro_dir/bar" or "rm ro_dir/foo" or "mv > ro_dir/foo somewhere_else/foo" - so you shall not achieve that by "mv ro_dir > somewhere_else" ;-) > > Re/moving a readonly file however is totally ok in the posix world of > logics (you're not altering the content at all, but simply remove a reference > to the inode. In doubt the last one) > > Fun fact: you _can_ move an *empty* ro directory =)
I see, thanks for the explanation. - David ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119372/#review66430 ----------------------------------------------------------- On July 22, 2014, 7:56 a.m., Arjun Ak wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119372/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated July 22, 2014, 7:56 a.m.) > > > Review request for KDE Base Apps. > > > Bugs: 337486 > http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=337486 > > > Repository: kde-baseapps > > > Description > ------- > > Fixes Bug 337486 > > > Diffs > ----- > > lib/konq/konq_operations.cpp 220a90a > > Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/119372/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Arjun Ak > >
