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
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 special) filename. I don't see anythin
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
A hard link is made to a file on disk, whereas a symbolic link is made to
a directory entry. Once a hard link is made, it's indistinguishable from
the original file. Essentially, *each* directory entry is a hard link to
the contents of the corresponding file, and the link count of any hard
link t
If you do this, remember that it shouldn't be limited to FAT file systems.
Even though one's version of Windows may be capable of making hard links,
one may not have the permission level (Administrator) to do so.
But I'm not sure that I see the point of emulating hard links. It seems to
me that y
24 matches
Mail list logo
