ls when acl() is busy [was: ls slow on top-level directory]
Thu Jun 30 19:49:00 GMT 2005
At 02:24 PM 6/30/2005, you wrote:
>Larry Hall wrote:
>>At 04:03 PM 6/28/2005, you wrote:
>>>IMO, it should be the other way around, i.e. no error but a '+' to
>>>signify an ACL, for two reasons:
>>>1. Transperency. Since the UNIX permissions are emulated, one could
>>>argue that all files should have the '+' displayed...
>>Traditional UNIX permissions have always been represented by "drwxrwxrwx"
>>permission displays (yes, I know "s" and "t" are possible options in some
>>of the above locations). ACLs are just different kinds of permissions that
>>don't obviously map into the traditional UNIX permissions. UNIX permissions
>>do not imply or require the use of ACLs so using a '+' for all files would misleading. Using '+' as you mentioned for all files displayed by Cygwin's
>>'ls' would actually make it less transparent, not more.
>That's not what I meant. My point was that since all files (natively)
>have ACLs, tt makes sense to assume that a locked file has an ACL.
The alternative is also safe to assume. Either way, I don't see how having
it one way (+) versus the other ( ) makes any difference. Do you?
Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
More information about the Cygwin