On Tuesday 12 August 2008 Peter Rabbitson wrote:
> Since there is a new release brewing I wanted to check if anything ever
> materialized from this thread as it is of extreme interest to me. To
> summarize:
> An idea popped up that ignoring or encryption of entries can happen
> based on the world readable permissions for every individual file.
> Ideally having encrypt-on-non-world-readable as default would be an
> invaluable catch-all for any sensitive data one might have around the
> system.
Well, I haven't implemented anything yet.
My current thinking is doing something like auto-props in svn - setting
properties based on filenames (or permission bits, as here).
I'd have shared most of that with the ignore code - so that ignoring
non-world-readable files is possible, too.
I don't know when the next version will be released, or if that will be in
there - but as it seems to be interesting to some people it rises a bit in
the (priority-sorted) list.
Does anyone have some good ideas about specifying a mask for permissions? I
think we'll need two parts - an AND, and a CMP - or possibly an XOR and an
AND - or something along these lines.
Eg PERM:0007 (AND; match if not equal to 0).
I'm not sure whether a negation (via XOR) is really needed - there are "take"
patterns, after all.
Are there any precedents how such permission bits can be specified?
(
And for the first version at least I'd like to stay with parsing some
numbers - going for "grwx" seems overkill, especially as there'll only be
one or two values be used in the common case, which I'd have special
coded as abbreviations.
Any volunteers, BTW? See r1848 for an example on extending ignore patterns.
)
> Thank you for the wonderful tool!
Thank you.
Regards,
Phil
--
Versioning your /etc, /home or even your whole installation?
Try fsvs (fsvs.tigris.org)!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
