On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Mark Nipper wrote:
Uh oh! It's that last part where there are the two extra
entries for the two ACL added groups, but no GID seems to have been
stored with each entry, whereas the example in the daemon news article
does actually show GID's in these places.
On 03 Nov 2003, Robert Watson wrote:
revision 1.11
date: 2003/07/24 23:33:25; author: rwatson; state: Exp; lines: +3 -2
Print group name in getfacl output when calculating an effective
permission set based on a more restrictive mask.
Duh. I need to add cvsweb to my list of
I think I might have found a bug in ACL's under UFS2 with
5.1-RELEASE-p10. I have been using ACL's successfully for awhile
now, but I'd never played with default ACL's for directories and
files you create underneath said directories until I came across
the daemon news article at:
---
On 03 Nov 2003, Mark Nipper wrote:
Uh oh! It's that last part where there are the two extra
entries for the two ACL added groups, but no GID seems to have
been stored with each entry, whereas the example in the daemon
news article does actually show GID's in these places.
Of
