On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 13:16:03 -0400 (EDT), Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>>
>> I plan to move all those files to a hidden dot-prefixed directory in
>> root of the current drive/volume. Emulated POSIX API need to conceal
>> that directory only.
>
>Note that this directory will be visible at the host OS (
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr 21 14:10, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 01:16:03PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > > >> ntea relies on a set of win32 functions available to NT family only.
> > > >
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr 21 13:29, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Apr 20 16:59, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > > > the most part, all NTEA does is store some information (e.g.,
> > > > permissions, and, of late, owner)
On Apr 21 13:29, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Apr 20 16:59, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > > the most part, all NTEA does is store some information (e.g., permissions,
> > > and, of late, owner) in a special file in the root directory. The only
> >
>
On Apr 21 14:10, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 01:16:03PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > >> ntea relies on a set of win32 functions available to NT family only.
> > >
> > >Yes, but as I asked -- is that necessary? I mean,
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 01:16:03PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >> ntea relies on a set of win32 functions available to NT family only.
> >
> >Yes, but as I asked -- is that necessary? I mean, if it will require a
> >full rewrite of the ntea f
On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 01:16:03PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>> ntea relies on a set of win32 functions available to NT family only.
>
>Yes, but as I asked -- is that necessary? I mean, if it will require a
>full rewrite of the ntea functionality, then NT is certainly a
>prerequisite.
I don
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Apr 20 16:59, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> > Well, actually, I've always wondered -- what makes NTEA NT-specific? For
>
> It isn't. It's OS/2 specific. NT allows extended attributes for
> OS/2 compatibility in the first place.
Well, that's kind o
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, A. Alper Atici wrote:
> {Too bad you guys are all top-posting. I hope I don't have to go
> through moving chunks of text again.}
Hey, I prefer to bottom-post myself, but when I come up against a
top-posted message, I'm usually too lazy to move stuff around, so I
"conform"...
ROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 9:16 AM
Subject: Re: Emulating hard links on FAT et al.
> You can't expect me to just admit I was completely wrong... :) It turns
out
> the only version of Unix I can remember that allowed separate permissions
> for
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Dennis McCunney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'Bill C. Riemers'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 11:10 PM
Subject: RE: Emulating hard links on FAT et al.
> > -Original Message--
On Apr 20 16:59, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> Well, actually, I've always wondered -- what makes NTEA NT-specific? For
It isn't. It's OS/2 specific. NT allows extended attributes for
OS/2 compatibility in the first place.
> the most part, all NTEA does is store some information (e.g., permission
{Too bad you guys are all top-posting. I hope I don't have to go
through moving chunks of text again.}
Comments are inlined:
>> > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>> > > 2) Alternatively, upon creating the first hard link the file could be
>> > > renamed to some internal name (that sh
.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Corinna Vinschen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Emulating hard links on FAT et al.
> On Apr 20 15:00, Bill C. Riemers wrote:
> > One obvious thing hard l
.
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Corinna Vinschen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Emulating hard links on FAT et al.
> On Apr 20 15:00, Bill C. Riemers wrote:
> > One obvious thing hard links
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004, Larry Hall wrote:
> At 03:02 PM 4/20/2004, you wrote:
> >Replying to myself -- bad habits die hard... Just to dot all the "i"s and
> >cross all the "t"s.
> >
> >One thing I forgot to mention is how to handle link counts. Those could
> >be stored in, for example, the NTEA att
At 03:02 PM 4/20/2004, you wrote:
>Replying to myself -- bad habits die hard... Just to dot all the "i"s and
>cross all the "t"s.
>
>One thing I forgot to mention is how to handle link counts. Those could
>be stored in, for example, the NTEA attributes file for the original (or
>the corresponding
On Apr 20 15:00, Bill C. Riemers wrote:
> One obvious thing hard links allow is a way to have the same file with
> different permissions. With a symbolic link you need both access
> permissions for the symbolic link and actual file. i.e.
>
> ln -s /tmp/foo.exe /home/bcr/foo.exe
> chmod ugo-x
csnyuedu>
> To: cygwincom>
> Cc: "Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID)" niaidnihgov>;
> "'A. Alper Atici'" ttnetnettr>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 3:02 PM
> Subject: RE: Emulating hard links on FAT et al.
>
> > Replying to myself -
ROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'A. Alper
Atici'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 3:02 PM
Subject: RE: Emulating hard links on FAT et al.
> Replying to myself -- bad ha
link could do that the ordinary symbolic
> > link cannot? (Sorry if this is a question with an obvious answer. I
> > haven't had more than fleeting access to a system that would allow me to
> > make hard links since 1988).
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > Fr
Bill
- Original Message -
From: "Buchbinder, Barry (NIH/NIAID)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'A. Alper Atici'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2004 2:27 PM
Subject: RE: Emulating hard links on FAT et al.
> If y
with an obvious answer. I
> haven't had more than fleeting access to a system that would allow me to
> make hard links since 1988).
>
> -Original Message-
> From: A. Alper Atici
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 5:52 PM
> To: cygwincygwincom
> Subject: RFI: Emulating
ake hard links since 1988).
-Original Message-
From: A. Alper Atici
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 5:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RFI: Emulating hard links on FAT et al.
Hello,
I've been pondering over the prospects of emulating hard links for
some time. List archives don&#x
Hello,
I've been pondering over the prospects of emulating hard links for
some time. List archives don't show much about it, and I have not come
across any similar open implementation on the net.
My rudimentary idea of emulating hard links is based on employing a
new type of windows shortcut whi
25 matches
Mail list logo
