Martin v. Löwis wrote: > Just in case it's not clear what Tim is getting at: > > if a folder is marked read-only on Windows, it doesn't mean > that you can only read from it. The read-only bit is a legacy > thing, anyway, since you are supposed to use ACLs to mark > a folder as read-only (by only granting write access to those > who are supposed to write) > > As the read-only bit is otherwise unused, Explorer uses it > to mark folders as being special, such a My Documents. > So by redirecting My Documents, you set the read-only bit > on the folder, causing access() to claim that write access > is not granted. > > It would be possible to fix this specific case, by always > returning True for directories; and perhaps I'll do that for > 2.5.2. > > A more general issue is whether the ACL should also be > taken into account. This would involve calling things like > OpenThreadToken, MapGenericMask, and AccessCheck. These are > all functions from the NT security API, and unavailable > on Win9x - which is the likely reason why the MS CRT did > not use them, either. Providing a proper access() implementation > for NT+ then only becomes possible for 2.6 (where W9x > is no longer supported). >
Great, thanks for those information! > P.S. I would never guessed that "move My Documents to test" > doesn't mean "drag-and-drop My Documents into test", but > "redirect My Documents to the test folder". Right, sorry :/ -- Yann -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
