Re: Linux-kernel-daily-digest digest, Vol 1 #171 - 281 msgs

[vda <vda@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>]

On Wednesday 21 November 2001 15:18, Bill Crawford wrote:
>  Now, ACLs I want to see widely supported on Linux, and *used* properly
> too.  They've been little used in most environments I've seen even on
> systems that do support them, which is a shame as they are a necessary
> and useful idea.  Yes, the Un*x permissions system does have some
> limitations, but let's not break *all* the existing software and OSs
> that use them, since what you're suggesting will not improve things.

Hmm. I thought proper group management can let you live with std UNIX
file permissions model... NT ACLs are horrendously complex.
"Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler"

> > versions of it). It's too late. I've made patch for chmod which adds new
> > +R flag to that effect.

>  Why is that needed anyway?  By default directories get execute bit set
> when they're created, at least in my environment; if you're extending
> permissions you can use "go=u" or "o=g" to broaden the permissions, as
> I would expect the existing perms to be correct on files vs directories
> in most cases.

It is legitimate to do that. Do I really have to explain?

I have a script which is designed to sweep entire tree starting from /
and do some sanity checks. For example, it Opens Source:

chmod -R -c a+R /usr/src

8-)

--
vda