-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ah, so this is still largely a matter of indecision? What exactly are the reasons against having the fourth set of permission bits active. Is it a matter of making the system a bit too non-unixy?
How much trouble would making a choice available for these permissions be? My guess is it would probably require quite a bit of codechanging in fileutils or making 2 versions of fileutils available or something, yes? also there would have to be some kind of synchronisation with enabling/disabling within hurd? Is this the right list for discussing design strategies? On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:33:45 +0100 > From: Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Robert Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: 4th set of permission bits? > > This feature is fully implemented on the Hurd side, > but we are not certain on the best default (active or > use "other" bits), and tools like chmod, ls need to be changed. > So the work has to be done in fileutils etc. > > Marcus - -- from da Bobstopper (Public Key available at http://www.student.uwa.edu.au/~rmarlow/bobstopper.gpg) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE6HqHv/dIi4WVxTXMRAnd9AJ40lnf/lURvohIUPCWTg/1H8IwoagCfeq91 Rz9oyAO4aa7RYjN16o5BuK0= =oH4M -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
