Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> >>> When someone e.g. tries to implement such a feature,
> >>> he or she is missing the point.
> >>
> >> Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that seeing the right username in ls -l
> >> output is a bad thing. It's useful.
Coda doesn't have an equivalent to "owner" or "group" rights. The
question is "what do you propose to put there?"
That is a good point. I hadn't thought about it initially, but I guess
ACLs are different to owner/group permissions. In an ACL system there is
no such a thing as an owner. A very good point.
Sure, in your situation you may wish to (attempt to) emulate POSIX
semantics, but Coda's suite of operations can't be restricted to that.
> database. I know this sounds crazy, but maybe a ls replacement wrapper
> that calls ls or coda's equivalent depending on what is mounted?
Seems reasonable, but it shouldn't be called "ls".
Except, as you just pointed out, ACLs and owner/group semantics are so
fundamentally different that the best ls can hope to achieve is either
not list the owner/group at all, or list them as some special value
(e.g. "coda"). So might as well not bother.
Just out of interest - is chowning files in coda meaningful? Or does it
just change the ls listed info and not change access rights in any way?
Gordan
