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. -- Chris D. Faulhaber - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------- FreeBSD: The Power To Serve - http://www.FreeBSD.org
msg32675/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
