Re: [PROPOSAL] Extended attributes for Posix security extensions

[Daniel Phillips]

Curtis Anderson wrote:
> It all depends on how optional things are, and what differences an unmodified
> app sees.  IMHO, "none" is the right answer in this case.  Part of my believing
> that directory-hack stream-style attributes are not good is that I don't know
> how to do them without making visible changes in the semantics of existing
> objects.  Proposing examples on how to make these extensions transparently to
> existing apps would help.

Could you please give one or two examples of existing objects whose
semantics would be changed by a directory-hack stream-style attributes? 
I'll try to counter, and if I fail then at least I'll have a concrete
reason to give up on the idea.

--
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]