[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions
From: |
Robin Farine |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions |
Date: |
Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:06:46 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.6.2 |
On Wednesday 29 September 2004 09.29, address@hidden wrote:
> How far are we of actually providing a generic `file metadata
> machinery'? Owner, permissions, timestamps, colour, flavour...
How far we are I do not know, but I do not think either we should
put everything in the same bag. I would separate ownership and
permissions, or access rights, from meta-data such as color or
flavor mainly because their role is not clear to me :).
What I am trying to say since the beginning of this discussion is
that versioning access rights need not to be handled by Arch as
something different from any other text file. Access rights
associated with _deployed_ files are not necessarily the same as
the access rights associated with files in a project tree or in a
revision library. The only thing Arch needs to provide is a hook
triggered by commands that alter a project tree, e.g. get, replay,
update,.
> Of course, for some attributes on some target systems you have
> to perform an actual mapping [on unix: owner <--> chown()
> perms <--> chmod() and so on, as far as your capabilities
> allow it. What to do when not? What to do with `other'
> metadata: e.g. WinNT ACLs on unix?]
It depends on the project. In a lot of projects, we just do not
care about the access rights. For projects where they are
important, nothing prevents us from having more than one access
right description file, each using a syntax adapted to the targeted
scheme.
Again, the tool that manages access rights does not have to be
tightly integrated with Arch, it just depends on the output of
'inventory'. So support for a new scheme of access rights can be
added later without incidence on Arch code or archives or project
trees or revision libraries.
Now, even if people think the current mechanism is what they need
and that I am just hand waving, fine, then being able to completely
disable the current mechanism (.arch-params option ?) would be
perfect so that we can have readonly files in revision libraries
and get rid of the annoying changes in permissions caused by
Windows/samba.
Robin
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, (continued)
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, James Blackwell, 2004/09/27
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, Miles Bader, 2004/09/27
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, John Meinel, 2004/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, Miles Bader, 2004/09/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, Miles Bader, 2004/09/28
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/28
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Link with permissions, tomas, 2004/09/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions,
Robin Farine <=
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Zenaan Harkness, 2004/09/29
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, tomas, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, tomas, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Zenaan Harkness, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions, Robin Farine, 2004/09/30
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla, Aaron Bentley, 2004/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla, Miles Bader, 2004/09/24
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bitkeeper vs tla, Stefan Monnier, 2004/09/24