On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 12:19:39PM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:00:05AM -0600, Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:05:44AM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> | > On 7 Dec 2001, Cameron Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > > Please don'
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:00:05AM -0600, Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:05:44AM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
| > On 7 Dec 2001, Cameron Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > > Please don't take this path - ownerships on symlinks are a pretty
| > > meaningless
The only circumstance where i could see symlink ownership being an issue
would be in the case where one might need to be changed, on those systems
which support that. Most i've seen delete and recreate the link, so if
the person needing to own the link has write, with no sticky bit, on the
co
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 12:05:44AM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2001, Cameron Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Please don't take this path - ownerships on symlinks are a pretty
> > meaningless concept
...
> > Why _not_ take the conservation approach "unless somebody reports a
> >
On 7 Dec 2001, Cameron Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please don't take this path - ownerships on symlinks are a pretty
> meaningless concept
Right. For just this reason I just changed the regression test to use
an included "tiny ls", rather than the system's ls, because on some
systems
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 10:56:17AM +0100, Niels Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > | Does anybody run rsync on Apollo?
| > Hell, they run it on Windoze :-( I know what I'd rather use.
| Huh? In stead of Windows, or in stead of rsync? :)
|
| There's a lot of Windows-users out there, and I thi
> | Does anybody run rsync on Apollo?
> Hell, they run it on Windoze :-( I know what I'd rather use.
Huh? In stead of Windows, or in stead of rsync? :)
There's a lot of Windows-users out there, and I think rsync is a great tool
on Windows-systems too. :)
No OS-wars here, just wanted to know if
On Thu, Dec 06, 2001 at 09:06:10AM -0600, Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 12:58:31AM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
| > Not so. The sunos4 boxen don't have lchown()
|
| You're right. However, the chown man page says it doesn't follow symlinks:
|
| If the fi
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 12:58:31AM +1100, Cameron Simpson wrote:
...
> Not so. The sunos4 boxen don't have lchown()
You're right. However, the chown man page says it doesn't follow symlinks:
If the final component of path is a symbolic link, the own-
ership and group of the symbol
On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 12:42:19PM -0600, Dave Dykstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 11:52:08PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
| > I see rsync has this in rsync.h
| > #ifndef HAVE_LCHOWN
| > #define lchown chown
| > #endif
Ick!
| > I'm not at all sure the way we're callin
On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 11:52:08PM +1100, Martin Pool wrote:
> I see rsync has this in rsync.h
>
> #ifndef HAVE_LCHOWN
> #define lchown chown
> #endif
>
> So on Linux lchown changes the ownership on a symlink, whereas chown
> on a symlink will change the ownership of its target. man lchow
I see rsync has this in rsync.h
#ifndef HAVE_LCHOWN
#define lchown chown
#endif
So on Linux lchown changes the ownership on a symlink, whereas chown
on a symlink will change the ownership of its target. man lchown says
In versions of Linux prior to 2.1.81 (and distinct from
12 matches
Mail list logo
