> >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.
My point exactly. I'm being bold or brazen or ignorant by saying: There is no point to do a chmod and not follow symlink. Chmod should always follow symlinks. That's why it's the default behavior, and that's why it's rare, strange, or impossible to override that behavior. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
