[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] BUG: feature request: 'tla chmod' which 'touch'es f

From: Aaron Bentley
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] BUG: feature request: 'tla chmod' which 'touch'es files
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 11:55:17 -0400
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040306)

John Meinel wrote:
Aaron Bentley wrote:

Zenaan Harkness wrote:

I'd rather fix revlibs so permission changes are detected, instead.

Well, fixing revlibs to detect the change is certainly important. But I was thinking that if you accidentally used an editor that didn't break hardlinks, then you would at least have a readonly file so you would realize you shouldn't edit it, or at least should break the hardlink first.

Seems some people are interested in that. Fine by me if they can figure out a sane way to do that. But fixing inode-sigs should have a higher priority.

Is there a specific reason why permission changes are not detected?

Not really. It's planned, but we want to do it carefully, so that old signatures still work, and only new ones store the permission data.

Is it just that timestamps are checked first, and if they are the same, no further work is done?

The signature is checked first-- it includes inode, mtime, size

So is it just the matter of checking permissions as well as checking timestamp?

It's a matter of adding permissions to the signature.

Also, if checking timestamp, which one are you checking? As I recall, mtime is the last modification to the file, but ctime is the last update of permissions.

We use mtime. Unfortunately, ctime is modified by operations we wish to ignore, like adding hard-links.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]