This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-developers@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: call to writeable_directory in _unlink: Do we need it?
- To: "cygwin-developers at sourceware dot cygnus dot com" <cygwin-developers at hotpop dot com>
- Subject: Re: call to writeable_directory in _unlink: Do we need it?
- From: Corinna Vinschen <corinna at vinschen dot de>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:49:14 +0200
- References: <4.3.1.2.20000524132333.00e5d910@pop.ma.ultranet.com> <392C173E.704F5DCD@vinschen.de> <4.3.1.2.20000524140935.00e4e510@pop.ma.ultranet.com> <20000524141933.A4308@cygnus.com>
- Reply-To: cygdev <cygwin-developers at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
Chris Faylor wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 02:14:59PM -0500, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote:
> >I'm left with the impression that the best option is to use the
> >writable_directory() call when ntsec is not enabled and skip it when
> >it is. Sounds to me like it wreaks havoc on proper ntsec function
> >but gets as close to UNIX behavior as possible for nontsec. If this
> >is indeed a valid synopsis of the pros/cons of this case, my high level
> >view of this conditionalize the use of writable_directory. Did I miss
> >some important point?
>
> I think that I agree with Corinna. I've always had reservations about
> this call, too. It's imposing UNIX permissions on NT and limiting
> cygwin's ability to do things that a normal windows program can do.
>
> I think that this is a gratuitous consistency and that it should be
> eliminated. If people start noticing problems then we can always put
> it back.
I want to suggest that I change the function to return always `TRUE'.
The actual code can be preserved by a `#if 0' directive for a
later (ab)use or until we decide to remove it completely.
Corinna