>It's a strange question anyway - You want a single file to have permissions >(suppose 755) in one directory, and some different permissions (suppost 700) >in some other directory? Then some users could access the file if they use >path A, but would be denied access to the same file if they used path B? >That's weird. > >It makes no sense to attempt setting perms on a symlink. The perms are >determined by the actual file. The symlink is just another name for the >file itself. If you want to change perms of the file, change the perms of >the file.
I think the purpose, at least for Solaris, would be making sure that chmod() doesn't follow symlinks. lchmod() used on a symbolic link would be a no-op. Casper _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
