help-hurd
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: nodes have authors


From: Alfred M. Szmidt
Subject: Re: nodes have authors
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 19:04:06 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.2.50

* Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes:
> address@hidden (Alfred M. Szmidt) writes:
>> - Print the "unknown permission bits" (what is the official name
>> for this?).

> Well, I would say it's the "nobody" bits or maybe the "anonymous"
> user bits or the "no ID" bits.  We should figure out one standard
> name to use.

Right, I used "unknown" because that was what was in the header file,
bits/stat.h.  "nobody" would be confusing as there is on most systems
a user by that name (or do we even care what weird things they do on
those UNIX systems? :). Maybe we could use "unknown user"?

[snip]

>> And I am working on setting the permission bits with chown, and
>> changing the author bit with chown (chown owner:group:author?), and
>> will probably implement the chauth (I think thats a better name
>> then chauthor) program.

> Why is chauth better than chauthor?

Same reason why we have chown instead of chowner, I guess.  But maybe
users would get confused with the auth translator, in that case chauthor
would be a better name.

>> I was thinking on maybe removing all the "normal" UNIX file modes
>> and only have ones for active/passive translators, and showing
>> output similar to when you have a symlink (this will only work for
>> passive translators):

> The normal modes really are important information; the filesystems
> are setting them because it's a useful hint to users about how the
> file behaves.

Yes, but I thought that with the `symlink like' (the one suggested bellow)
info this could be used instead of the normal modes.

>> trw-rw-rw-rw- 1 root root root 0, 0 Dec 27 22:25 /dev/null =>
>> /hurd/null
>> 
>> Note, I used => instead of the normal -> to show that it is really
>> different.

> Good idea.

Should this also apply to symlinks? Or should the default behaviour be used.

Oh, can we define S_IRUNK , S_IWUNK and S_IXUNK in a libc header?

#define S_IRUNK (S_IRUSR << S_IUNKSHIFT)
#define S_IWUNK (S_IWUSR << S_IUNKSHIFT)
#define S_IXUNK (S_IXUSR << S_IUNKSHIFT)

-- 
Alfred M. Szmidt



reply via email to

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