On Mon, Dec 03, 2001 at 01:52:19AM +0100, Daniel Rock wrote:
> Robert Watson schrieb:
> > That said, I won't argue it's intuitive unless you know about the behavior
> > already, and it probably should be documented in the stat(2) man page.  If
> > you're interested in discussing these semantics, it might be worth raising
> > it on the POSIX.1e mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]).  A number of
> > people involved in writing the spec are there, and in the past it has been
> > a successful forum for discussing ambiguities (not to mention mistakes) in
> > the spec.
> I don't have access to the POSIX spec. I only found some early drafts. Without
> detailed knowledge of these internals I wouldn't be a good participant in
> this discussion.

See http://wt.xpilot.org/publications/posix.1e/download.html for
.pdf's, .ps's, and .nroff's of the last drafts (.1e and .2c).
http://www.TrustedBSD.org/ also has links to the posix1e mailing
lists and other resources.

> But what about some additions to ls: In Solaris - if the file has additional
> ACLs - the permissions are followed by a plus sign (see above). So you know:
> To get full information you have to use getfacl.

See http://www.fxp.org/jedgar/ACL/ for patches to enable ACL support
for cp, ls, and mv.  For ls, the patch simply changes the string
obtained from stat(2).  In the future stat(2)/strmode(3) will
support ACL's natively.

Also, I committed a patch recently to the gnuls port to give it
support ala the aformentioned ls patch.

FreeBSD: The Power To Serve   -   http://www.FreeBSD.org

Attachment: msg32675/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to