[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions

From: Zenaan Harkness
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Link with permissions
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:00:09 +1000

On Thu, 2004-09-30 at 01:06, Robin Farine wrote:
> On Wednesday 29 September 2004 09.29, address@hidden wrote:

> 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.

I very much agree with your assessment.


reply via email to

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